Iced up Cirrus crashes [Archive]

Michael

February 10th 05, 04:54 PM

>I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the aircraft per se.

Having flown one, I am absolutely convinced there is nothing wrong with
it - assuming you have the right pilot in the seat. Actually, I rather
like the aircraft. It's roomy and comfortable, the visibility is
excellent, the panel (meaning the new glass panel) spectacular in both
functionality and redundancy, and the side-yoke is a damn good idea. I
find it slightly less demanding to fly in IMC than a V-tail Bonanza,
but the difference comes entirely from improved
ergonomics/instrumentation. The airframe itself, despite being fixed
gear, is just as slippery and pitch-sensitive as a Bonanza with the
gear up, and maybe more so. On top of that, you can't slow down by
dropping the gear.

I've often said that an Arrow is not really a complex airplane - it's
just a Cherokee with a couple of extra levers. The same principle
applies to the Cirrus - it's not really a simple airplane, it's a
Bonanza with a couple of levers missing. Further, adding the parachute
makes the decisionmaking AND the flying of the emergency procedure more
complex AND more demanding than in a Bonanza - it's part of the way to
being a light twin. Here we have an accident where the pilot didn't
keep his airspeed under control - and so of course the parachute did
him no good. Conceptually, that's no different than a twin accident
where the pilot fails to control airspeed in the single engine
configuration.

>their marketing is still touting the product as providing quantum
>improvements in safety, which it manifestly does not.

Actually, I suspect it does provide some improvement. I suspect that
if the same pilots with the same level of training were flying around
in traditional heavy singles and light twins, the carnage would be
worse. But the Cirrus business plan has always been to dramatically
increase the number of pilots who fly for transportation, not simply
take market share away from Beech or Mooney. I didn't think it was
viable then, and I don't think it's viable now.

> Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate number of airplanes to
inexperienced pilots?

That's certainly the impression I'm getting - the pilots either have
low total time or low time in a similar class of airplane (and by
similar class of airplane, I mean Bonanza, Viking, late model Mooney,
etc.). I'm not seeing any accidents in the Cirrus being caused by
pilots with hundreds of hours in a Bonanza or a Viking.

It's not that a low time pilot CAN'T safely fly one. With the right
instruction and the right attitude, it's very doable. However, the
typical buyer of a Cirrus (near as I can tell) is a self-made man in
late middle age. He is very likely to be a business owner (as this one
was). Such people generally didn't get to where they are today by
listening to all the people telling them what they couldn't do. Such
people are also not going to hang around the airport absorbing
knowledge. They're not going to meet the kind of instructor who can
really teach them to get utility from that airplane without becoming
statistics, and they're not going to rearrange their schedules and put
up with his quirks to fly with him. And so we're goign to keep seeing
accidents like this.

Michael

greenwavepilot

February 10th 05, 07:28 PM

Michael 182 wrote:
> "... is there any difference between how composites react to icing
versus aluminum?
>
> Michael

Michael, I am training in a Diamond DA-20 C1, incidentally, the only
composite airplane on my flight schools ramp. I am flying in upstate
SC. This morning, at 8:15 the top surfaces of the wings on the C1 were
iced significantly, as was the nose and fuselage (tail boom). Outside
air temp was 41*F/Overnight low was 40*F. Plane is tied-down, morning
sun was directly on wing surfaces, no intervening shadows. My lesson
was delayed, of course.

Curious, I checked the other planes on the ramp-all of which are
aluminum. NONE had icing on any surface. Through a very unscientific
"hand touch" test I determined the composite surfaces "felt" much
colder than the aluminum surfaces.

I would be very interested in learning more about the heat/cold
transfer dynamics of aluminum versus composites. Pure speculatin'
though, I would bet from my limited experience that the composite will
ice faster or retain ice longer than similarly exposed aluminum. But,
there's always someone who knows more about it than me-so maybe they
will chime in.

Pete

George Patterson

February 10th 05, 08:16 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
> attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
> number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?

That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot" article
reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced Aircraft."
These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display, and
an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of them
had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.

The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.

The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate amount of
attention in these groups.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

George Patterson

February 10th 05, 08:18 PM

greenwavepilot wrote:
>
> Pure speculatin'
> though, I would bet from my limited experience that the composite will
> ice faster or retain ice longer than similarly exposed aluminum.

I would bet that the composite will ice more slowly and retain the ice longer.
It will lose or gain heat more slowly than aluminum.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Peter MacPherson

February 10th 05, 08:30 PM

George,

What is their definition of "crash"? Maybe a lot of the 182 "crashes" have
been
hard landings and such, versus a lot of these Cirrus crashes that seem to be
more along the enroute phase and are fatal?

Pete

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
>> attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
>> number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?
>
> That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot"
> article
> reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced
> Aircraft."
> These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display,
> and
> an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of
> them
> had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
> aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.
>
> The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.
>
> The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate
> amount of
> attention in these groups.
>
> George Patterson
> He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
> adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Colin W Kingsbury

February 10th 05, 08:42 PM

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> i like that analogy. i'm sorta suprised noone has gotten on the cirrus
> guys' comment that they have a really excellent icing system...the
> saying it's only good for an hour or so to find somewhere to land.
> huh?? do you suspect they might phrase that a little different in the
> sales talk?? i would be interested in knowing how many times that pilot
> had made that trip in those "approximate" conditions, relied on that
> "excellent" icing system and did just fine.
>

Night, mountains, ice, inexperienced pilot? Could be just simple task
saturation followed by panic followed by disorientation with 'chute
deployment too late to make a difference. It's awful soon to speculate the
deicing system is bum.

-cwk.

greenwavepilot

February 10th 05, 09:06 PM

George, I did some research and found the following thermal
conductivity values (Note these figures are for a standard temperature
of 25*C):

Aluminum,
Pure=237 watts/meter*Kelvin

Fiberglass,
Paper Faced=.046 watts/meter*Kelvin

So, what I should have inferred from my non-aviation experience with
these materials is confirmed by the above thermal conductivity values.
That is, aluminum is a good heat conductor-it can either gain or lose
heat very quickly. Fiberglass on the other hand is a good insulator.
It does not lose or gain heat very rapidly. Thus once "set" at a
temperature, it will tend to remain there longer than aluminum.

Therefore I would agree that versus fiberglass the aluminum surfaces
will cool to icing temperatures faster, and conversely will heat to
non-icing temperatures faster. The composite will cool more slowly,
but once cooled, will retain that temperature much longer, meaning like
I discovered this morning, my composite plane will/may be iced when the
Cessnas, Pipers and Mooneys won't.

During the preflight "Hand Checking Of All Surfaces" has added meaning
for a composite driver.

Pete

Stefan

February 10th 05, 09:12 PM

greenwavepilot wrote:

> The composite will cool more slowly,
> but once cooled, will retain that temperature much longer,

If you fly high and descend fast on a reasonably humid day, you'll see
condensation on the wings after the flight.

Stefan

Friedrich Ostertag

February 10th 05, 10:32 PM

Stefan wrote:
>> That is exactly what Dan said...excess pilot confidence which leads
>> to poor judgment which leads to a dead pilot.
>
> I've understood Dan's post as Cirrus specific, something to the lines
> that the SR22 is difficult to fly and requires more training. Flying
> into icing conditions at night is nothing Cirrus specific. But I may
> be wrong.

Overconfidence in the airplane's capabilities could've been part of the
go-decision, and that overconfidence could be, in a way, cirrus
specific. I think that was Dan's point.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

Michael

February 10th 05, 11:03 PM

> Richard Collins wrote about this type of things 10 years ago. He
looked
> at why us Mooney owners pay more in insurance than Arrow pilots and
why
> Mooneys have more wx accidents.

This is all well and good, but the reality is that the Mooney is a
significantly different airplane. It's 10-15 kts faster than an
equivalent Arrow on the same engine and fuel burn, and it actually has
a higher useful load. In fact, even the Comanche 180 is faster than an
Arrow and has a higher useful load and a bigger cabin - on 20 hp less.
That's because, as I've mentioned before, the Arrow isn't really a
complex airplane - it's a Cherokee with a couple of extra levers. It
handles like a Cherokee - stable and docile. The Mooney is more
demanding to fly, and will overload a pilot faster.

In other words - it's not just the mission, it's the airplane too.

Michael

City Dweller

February 10th 05, 11:33 PM

I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I am
sure glad I did.

The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way beyond
the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way through
February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives already this
year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a vengeance.

I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of bugs.
A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in rare,
unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days, months and
even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky never to
recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code execution that
causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in a
real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the probability
of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun begins.

The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious the
programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit that an
occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the software,
not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.

It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the grim
statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them bugs
must be fixed before more people die.

-- City Dweller
Post-solo Student Pilot
(soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)

George Patterson

February 11th 05, 01:58 AM

Peter MacPherson wrote:
>
> What is their definition of "crash"?

The NTSB definition of "accident."

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

John Theune

February 11th 05, 02:31 AM

City Dweller wrote:
> I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
> point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I am
> sure glad I did.
>
> The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way beyond
> the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
> typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
> school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
> somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way through
> February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives already this
> year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a vengeance.
>
> I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
> crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
> production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
> during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of bugs.
> A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in rare,
> unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days, months and
> even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky never to
> recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code execution that
> causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in a
> real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the probability
> of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun begins.
>
> The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious the
> programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit that an
> occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the software,
> not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.
>
> It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
> that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the grim
> statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them bugs
> must be fixed before more people die.
>
> -- City Dweller
> Post-solo Student Pilot
> (soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)
>
>
While there have been 3 fatal accidents this year in Cirrus aircraft,
there have been 16 fatal accidents in the last 10 days according to the
FAA incident reports. Without more analysis then "they are falling out
of the sky" it's very difficult to say what is going on.

aluckyguess

February 11th 05, 03:14 AM

"> While there have been 3 fatal accidents this year in Cirrus aircraft,
> there have been 16 fatal accidents in the last 10 days according to the
> FAA incident reports. Without more analysis then "they are falling out of
> the sky" it's very difficult to say what is going on.
Weather probably has played a big part in this. We have had more rain this
year than I can remember.
I hope to own a Cirrus after I get a few more hours and IFR rated. I called
to get a price on insurance and it was very expensive with my current hours
and rating.

houstondan

February 11th 05, 04:41 AM

insurance? of course. seems that the insurance companies would be
pretty good judges of the aircraft. what do they have to say? any
special stuff beyond what they demand on similar aircraft and yes, i
just realized that "similar" might be sticky.

dan

Roger

February 11th 05, 04:51 AM

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:13:20 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> That is exactly what Dan said...excess pilot confidence which leads to poor
>> judgment which leads to a dead pilot.
>
>I've understood Dan's post as Cirrus specific, something to the lines
>that the SR22 is difficult to fly and requires more training. Flying

Part of that is true. It's not difficult to fly, but it's hot and
slippery and does require more training. Sirrus has a very
comprehensive training program. The transition to the SR22 is little
different than transitioning to an A-36 except for the gear. The
speed is far more of an issue than the gear. There appears to be a
set of pilots who think of it as just another fixed gear airplane with
an extra safety factor to keep them out of trouble. It has fixed gear,
but it is not just another fixed gear airplane.

It takes a different mind set to fly a 200 MPH plus airplane than it
does a 130 MPH airplane and it's not something that many adjust to
quickly. You easily have to be thinking twice as far ahead.

Pilots should think of the Cirrus in the same light as an A-36 without
having to think about lowering the gear. The Cirrus is actually a bit
faster than the A-36 and this creates a situation where we have a 130
MPH mind in a 200 MPH airplane and it is not a trivial difference.

Not only does the airplane travel a lot faster, you can get into
trouble a lot faster and it is far less forgiving than a Cherokee,
172, or even 182.

>into icing conditions at night is nothing Cirrus specific. But I may be
>wrong.

I think it's part of that mind set that thinks of a fixed gear
airplane with a BRS for safety and they use that to rationalize
launching into conditions they'd never go near in a conventional
airplane such as the 172.

When my insurance company wanted 25 hours of dual before carrying
passengers I thought it was a bit much, but it took me most of that to
catch up with the airplane although a lot of it was under the hood.
After that it took another couple hundred hours before I really knew
the airplane. It still teaches me something quite often.

A late friend who was a Bo specialist once asked after observing me,
come down, slow down, and use minimal runway, "Do you think you could
have done that two years ago?" and the answer was, "no".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Stefan

Montblack

February 11th 05, 06:48 AM

("greenwavepilot" wrote)

<snip>
> Michael, I am training in a Diamond DA-20 C1, incidentally, the only
> composite airplane on my flight schools ramp. I am flying in upstate
> SC. This morning, at 8:15 the top surfaces of the wings on the C1 were
> iced significantly, as was the nose and fuselage (tail boom). Outside
> air temp was 41*F/Overnight low was 40*F. Plane is tied-down, morning
> sun was directly on wing surfaces, no intervening shadows. My lesson
> was delayed, of course.

There can be a thermal "dip" right before sunrise, right about at wingtip
height. Duck hunters and deer hunters will confirm (and curse) this
temperature phenomenon - forget what it's called.

41F overnight? 40F at 8:15? And still ice?

So it either go down to 32F at or near your wing, or it was below 32F a
number of feet, maybe many, many feet above your wing? Or your wing was 32F
at some point in the early morning? Wonder what it was?

Also wonder what the height of the temp reading instrument is?

Our local airport can report 40F with an overnight low of 36F yet there will
sometimes be "white-ice-dew" on the grass those mornings - usually in the
fall. We keep track of this because of our flower garden and outside plants.
Minnesota flowers in late October are a night-by-night proposition. Ooh,
there go the Impatiens.

Our airport's automated weather reporting station is less than two miles
away. Plus geologically, we are all at an identical elevation sharing the
same glacially flat sandy river bottom. This area was all sod farms just a
few years back - no other farming is sustainable in this area. Anyway, we
usually always agree with the airport temps - here at home, in the car,
neighbors thermometer, etc.

37F-40F and frost on the grass in the morning is common here.

Montblack

Roger

February 11th 05, 07:32 AM

On 10 Feb 2005 20:41:13 -0800, "houstondan"
> wrote:

>insurance? of course. seems that the insurance companies would be
>pretty good judges of the aircraft. what do they have to say? any
>special stuff beyond what they demand on similar aircraft and yes, i
>just realized that "similar" might be sticky.

They charge more for an SR22 than for a Glasair III.
Over 1/3 of what I was quoted for on a new TBM 700 as a low time pilot
(1100 hours in mostly high performance retract) with no turbine
experience.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>dan

Happy Dog

February 11th 05, 10:53 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in

> The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
> that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:

Nobody cares. Your opinions are of no interest to the world at large. Do
you have stats to back your claim?

<chirp>

moo

Peter

February 11th 05, 11:19 AM

Montblack wrote:
> ("greenwavepilot" wrote)
>
> <snip>
>
>>Michael, I am training in a Diamond DA-20 C1, incidentally, the only
>>composite airplane on my flight schools ramp. I am flying in upstate
>>SC. This morning, at 8:15 the top surfaces of the wings on the C1 were
>>iced significantly, as was the nose and fuselage (tail boom). Outside
>>air temp was 41*F/Overnight low was 40*F. Plane is tied-down, morning
>>sun was directly on wing surfaces, no intervening shadows. My lesson
>>was delayed, of course.

> There can be a thermal "dip" right before sunrise, right about at wingtip
> height. Duck hunters and deer hunters will confirm (and curse) this
> temperature phenomenon - forget what it's called.
>
> 41F overnight? 40F at 8:15? And still ice?
>
> So it either go down to 32F at or near your wing, or it was below 32F a
> number of feet, maybe many, many feet above your wing? Or your wing was 32F
> at some point in the early morning? Wonder what it was?

The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature. So it's
possible for frost to form even when the air temperature never gets
down to freezing.

Stefan

February 11th 05, 12:03 PM

Peter wrote:

> The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
> can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.

Err... no.

Stefan

Jon Kraus

February 11th 05, 12:06 PM

Great discription about what a software bug is... I too am a
programmer... errrr sorry... Software Engineer... and you hit the bug
description "nail on the head".. I don't think that the Cirrus issues
are because of bugs in the airplane... It may be "bugs" in the training
process but from what I can tell the airplane (hardware if you will) is
a good design and inherently safe... When I moved up to our Mooney from
the 172's that I flew for 3 years the insurance company required 10
hours dual and 10 hours solo before carrying pax... This seemed like the
minimum when I first started flying the airplane... I wondered if I
wopuld ever get the hang of flying it.. But, low and behold things
started to come together and I am now pretty comfortable flying the plane..

The biggest thing I found when moving up to a faster airplane is you
MUST plan ahead... We are talking many miles ahead especially if you are
fly high.. you may need 40-50 miles to decend to pattern altitude at a
speed where you can get the gear down... If you wait too long and think
you can just "Dive and Drive" you'll never get it slowed down in time..
(been there done that got the t-shirt).

That being said.... What kind of plane are you looking at?

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Mooney 201 4443H

City Dweller wrote:

> I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
> point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I am
> sure glad I did.
>
> The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way beyond
> the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
> typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
> school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
> somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way through
> February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives already this
> year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a vengeance.
>
> I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
> crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
> production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
> during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of bugs.
> A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in rare,
> unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days, months and
> even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky never to
> recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code execution that
> causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in a
> real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the probability
> of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun begins.
>
> The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious the
> programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit that an
> occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the software,
> not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.
>
> It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
> that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the grim
> statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them bugs
> must be fixed before more people die.
>
> -- City Dweller
> Post-solo Student Pilot
> (soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)
>
>

Dan Luke

February 11th 05, 12:30 PM

"Happy Dog" wrote:
>> The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm
>> convinced that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:
>
> Nobody cares.

Is that why "nobody" responded to the post?

> Your opinions are of no interest to the world at large. Do you have
> stats to back your claim?

I might ask you the same question.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Morgans

February 11th 05, 02:26 PM

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter wrote:
>
> > The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
> > can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.
>
> Err... no.
>
> Stefan

Err... yes.
--
Jim in NC

George Patterson

February 11th 05, 02:55 PM

Stefan wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> > The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
> > can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.
>
> Err... no.

Err ... Yes. The Romans used to make ice in North Africa by taking advantage of
this phenomena.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

W P Dixon

February 11th 05, 02:58 PM

That's pretty cool (Pardon the pun ;)) Where can I read up on that George?

Patrick

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stefan wrote:
>>
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>> > The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
>> > can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.
>>
>> Err... no.
>
> Err ... Yes. The Romans used to make ice in North Africa by taking
> advantage of
> this phenomena.
>
> George Patterson
> He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
> adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

George Patterson

February 11th 05, 03:12 PM

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> That's pretty cool (Pardon the pun ;)) Where can I read up on that George?

I read about it in the 70s and don't remember where; probably a Science Fact
article in Analog or Popular Mechanics. As I recall, the technique is to dig a
hole large enough to keep your water container completely below ground. Cover it
during the day and insulate it (the Romans used straw). Leave it open to the
night sky. It will freeze in a few days. The article said it only works in areas
where the night sky is usually perfectly clear (ie. the desert).

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

February 11th 05, 03:13 PM

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:26:18 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

>"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter wrote:

>> > The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night sky
>> > can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.

>> Err... no.

>Err... yes.

Let me guess what's going on here.

"Ambient air temperature" means " the current local temperature of the air."
As someone said in another post, this is a fairly imprecise term and
depends on where the measurement is made at an airport.

Heat can be transferred by conduction (two masses in contact), convection
(circulation of gases or liquids), and radiation (infrared rays carry heat
away from the warm mass elsewhere).

Two masses in contact with each other (airplane skin and the air
that contacts it) have got to reach thermal equilibrium, all things
being equal and given sufficent time. Stefan seems to be focused
on this fact--the skin and the layer of air near it have to be at
the same temperature. JSM says, "But that layer of air may
be cooled more than the ambient air because the surface
loses heat not only to the ambient air but also by means of
infrared radiation."

The contrary situation certainly seems to be true: some surfaces
can be way hotter than the ambient air temperature because they
gain heat by "soaking up the sun's rays" (both infrared and visible,
I imagine). The air in contact with the hot surfaces must be in
equilibrium with the hot surface, though the air temperature would
decline to ambient air temperature as you move further away
from the surface.

Or so it seems to me.

Marty

Michael

February 11th 05, 03:18 PM

> They charge more for an SR22 than for a Glasair III.

Really? For the same hull value and the same coverage?

Michael

City Dweller

February 11th 05, 03:28 PM

I am getting the Diamond DA40 Star. Slower than the SR22 and even SR20,
but its safety record is impeccable.

Now back to the bug question: I too agree that there is nothing wrong
with the Cirrus design, but that does not mean it can't have bugs.

A few weeks ago I watched a great program on TLC about NTSB's effort to
investigate a series of 737 crashes more than a decade ago. After years
of meticulous and thorough "debugging", the did find a bug in that
aircraft -- a tiny-teeny rudder valve which sometimes jams. You can
read more about it here:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/flight427/s_247850.html

Unfortunately, you can't expect that level of effort on NTSB's part
when investigating the crashes of small potatoes like the Cirrus, and
that's a shame. Cirrus will have to do it themselves, or risk having
their entire fleet grounded.

-- City Dweller

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Great discription about what a software bug is... I too am a
> programmer... errrr sorry... Software Engineer... and you hit the bug

> description "nail on the head".. I don't think that the Cirrus issues

> are because of bugs in the airplane... It may be "bugs" in the
training
> process but from what I can tell the airplane (hardware if you will)
is
> a good design and inherently safe... When I moved up to our Mooney
from
> the 172's that I flew for 3 years the insurance company required 10
> hours dual and 10 hours solo before carrying pax... This seemed like
the
> minimum when I first started flying the airplane... I wondered if I
> wopuld ever get the hang of flying it.. But, low and behold things
> started to come together and I am now pretty comfortable flying the
plane..
>
> The biggest thing I found when moving up to a faster airplane is you
> MUST plan ahead... We are talking many miles ahead especially if you
are
> fly high.. you may need 40-50 miles to decend to pattern altitude at
a
> speed where you can get the gear down... If you wait too long and
think
> you can just "Dive and Drive" you'll never get it slowed down in
time..
> (been there done that got the t-shirt).
>
> That being said.... What kind of plane are you looking at?
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>
> City Dweller wrote:
>
> > I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was
at one
> > point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane,
and I am
> > sure glad I did.
> >
> > The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone
way beyond
> > the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
> > typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our
flight
> > school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of
it as
> > somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely
half-way through
> > February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives
already this
> > year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a
vengeance.
> >
> > I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day --
software
> > crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in

> > production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded
on it
> > during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because
of bugs.
> > A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in
rare,
> > unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days,
months and
> > even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky
never to
> > recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code
execution that
> > causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in
a
> > real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the
probability
> > of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun
begins.
> >
> > The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how
serious the
> > programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit
that an
> > occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the
software,
> > not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.
> >
> > It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is
just
> > that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well,
the grim
> > statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them
bugs
> > must be fixed before more people die.
> >
> > -- City Dweller
> > Post-solo Student Pilot
> > (soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)
> >
> >

Robert M. Gary

February 11th 05, 03:34 PM

I think the plane is the mission. The reason you get into more Wx in a
Mooney is because its faster with a higher load. It becomes the
airplane of choice for people who want to fly long distances. If it had
shorter legs like an Arrow, it wouldn't cross as many wx systems.

Legrande Harris

February 11th 05, 04:00 PM

In article >,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
> > attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
> > number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?
>
> That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot"
> article
> reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced Aircraft."
> These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display,
> and
> an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of
> them
> had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
> aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.
>
> The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.

How many fatalities where there? If they were the same, what does that
say about the safety chute?

> The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate amount
> of
> attention in these groups.
>
> George Patterson
> He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
> adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

February 11th 05, 04:17 PM

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:12:27 GMT, George Patterson > wrote:

>W P Dixon wrote:

>> That's pretty cool (Pardon the pun ;)) Where can I read up on that George?

>I read about it in the 70s and don't remember where; probably a Science Fact
>article in Analog or Popular Mechanics. As I recall, the technique is to dig a
>hole large enough to keep your water container completely below ground. Cover it
>during the day and insulate it (the Romans used straw). Leave it open to the
>night sky. It will freeze in a few days. The article said it only works in areas
>where the night sky is usually perfectly clear (ie. the desert).

This site gives a reference:

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/941723540.Sh.r.html>

Marty

Ron Garret

February 11th 05, 04:31 PM

In article >,
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:

> Two masses in contact with each other (airplane skin and the air
> that contacts it) have got to reach thermal equilibrium, all things
> being equal and given sufficent time.

Not quite. They have to reach thermal equilibrium if there is no heat
flowing in or out of the system. But, as you correctly note, heat can
(and doe) flow in and out via radiation. Surfaces can "soak up" the
cold of the night sky (actually, they radiate their heat into the night
sky) and become colder than the surrounding air, just as they can "soak
up" the heat of the sun and become warmer than the surrounding air.
Eventually some of the cold/heat does get transferred to the air. This
is why clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy ones (and why clear
days tend to be warmer, all else being equal).

rg

Matt Barrow

February 11th 05, 04:45 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Feb 2005 20:41:13 -0800, "houstondan"
> > wrote:
>
> >insurance? of course. seems that the insurance companies would be
> >pretty good judges of the aircraft. what do they have to say? any
> >special stuff beyond what they demand on similar aircraft and yes, i
> >just realized that "similar" might be sticky.
>
> They charge more for an SR22 than for a Glasair III.
> Over 1/3 of what I was quoted for on a new TBM 700 as a low time pilot
> (1100 hours in mostly high performance retract) with no turbine
> experience.
>
Could you rephrase that last sentence? I'm not sure what you're saying
there.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Michael

February 11th 05, 04:51 PM

But getting into weather is not in and of itself enough to cause an
accident. You also need to make bad decisions and/or mishandle the
airplane. The higher the workload, the more likely you are to do that,
all else being equal.

The workload of flying a Mooney is higher than the workload of flying
an Arrow. It's not as forgiving. Thus I would expect that the same
pilots flying the same airplane in the same conditions would
nonetheless have more accidents in a Mooney.

Michael

Matt Barrow

February 11th 05, 05:08 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stefan wrote:
> >
> > Peter wrote:
> >
> > > The temperature of a surface that's radiating heat to a clear night
sky
> > > can drop considerably below the ambient air temperature.
> >
> > Err... no.
>
> Err ... Yes. The Romans used to make ice in North Africa by taking
advantage of
> this phenomena.
>
You were there?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO.

Ron Garret

February 11th 05, 05:17 PM

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>
> > Two masses in contact with each other (airplane skin and the air
> > that contacts it) have got to reach thermal equilibrium, all things
> > being equal and given sufficent time.
>
> Not quite. They have to reach thermal equilibrium if there is no heat
> flowing in or out of the system. But, as you correctly note, heat can
> (and doe) flow in and out via radiation. Surfaces can "soak up" the
> cold of the night sky (actually, they radiate their heat into the night
> sky) and become colder than the surrounding air, just as they can "soak
> up" the heat of the sun and become warmer than the surrounding air.
> Eventually some of the cold/heat does get transferred to the air. This
> is why clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy ones (and why clear
> days tend to be warmer, all else being equal).

It is worth noting also that dark surfaces absorb and radiate more
readily than light ones, and so they get hotter during the day and
colder at night. Cirri are all painted white in order to take advantage
of this phenomenon and keep the skin from getting too hot in the sun.
(You'll never see a non-white Cirrus. It's part of the certification
conditions to paint the white.) Accordingly, Cirri are less prone to
radiation-induced cooling and icing than a dark-colored plane would be,
all else being equal.

FWIW,
rg

Montblack

February 11th 05, 05:36 PM

("Ron Garret" wrote)
> Not quite. They have to reach thermal equilibrium if there is no heat
> flowing in or out of the system. But, as you correctly note, heat can
> (and doe) flow in and out via radiation. Surfaces can "soak up" the
> cold of the night sky (actually, they radiate their heat into the night
> sky) and become colder than the surrounding air, just as they can "soak
> up" the heat of the sun and become warmer than the surrounding air.
> Eventually some of the cold/heat does get transferred to the air. This
> is why clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy ones (and why clear
> days tend to be warmer, all else being equal).

So on the 41F night in question, and having imaginary temp probes build into
the composite wing surface, we might see overnight wing temperature readings
of say 29F or 30F?

Is there a way to (WAG), in advance, what different surface temps will be on
the night in question? (41F overnight and 40F at 8:15 am)

Knowing air temp, humidity, cloud cover, wind, etc - could someone predict
that the composite wing will be in the 25F - 31F range overnight, whereas
the aluminum wing might only get briefly down to say 35F? Aluminum being
willing to give up its heat to the air more readily than the composites?

Montblack

AES

February 11th 05, 05:46 PM

In article >,
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:12:27 GMT, George Patterson >
> wrote:
>
> >W P Dixon wrote:
>
> >> That's pretty cool (Pardon the pun ;)) Where can I read up on that George?
>
> >I read about it in the 70s and don't remember where; probably a Science Fact
> >article in Analog or Popular Mechanics. As I recall, the technique is to dig
> >a
> >hole large enough to keep your water container completely below ground.
> >Cover it
> >during the day and insulate it (the Romans used straw). Leave it open to the
> >night sky. It will freeze in a few days. The article said it only works in
> >areas
> >where the night sky is usually perfectly clear (ie. the desert).
>
> This site gives a reference:
>
> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/941723540.Sh.r.html>
>
> Marty

Except that particular reference isn't very clear about the relative
roles of heat transfer to the air (and into the surrounding ground) and
radiative transfer to the sky -- e.g., it says

". . . at night, the pit would be uncovered so that it could lose
heat to the desert air."

You might take that to imply that the air temp in those African and
Palestinian deserts goes below 32 F at night? (Anyone know?)

You guys are into some interesting physics here. Do the plane wings
frost even when the surrounding air is above 32 F because their net heat
transfer to the surrounding above-freezing air is not as strong as their
net radiative heat transfer to the cold sky? (which should also imply
equally strong net heat connectivity to the ground below, is that not
so?)

Or do they acquire and retain frost because some colder and therefore
heavier below-freezing air just fell down on them at some earlier time?

I'll wait for an authoritative answer, but bet on the latter explanation.

Montblack

February 11th 05, 05:56 PM

("Ron Garret" wrote)

> It is worth noting also that dark surfaces absorb and radiate more
> readily than light ones, and so they get hotter during the day and
> colder at night. Cirri are all painted white in order to take advantage
> of this phenomenon and keep the skin from getting too hot in the sun.
> (You'll never see a non-white Cirrus. It's part of the certification
> conditions to paint the white.) Accordingly, Cirri are less prone to
> radiation-induced cooling and icing than a dark-colored plane would be,
> all else being equal.

I get the sun heating darker surfaces up (many degrees!) more than an
identical white surface.

What I don't get is: Two wings of identical design and an identical starting
temp, both sitting out on a cold February night (no sun). How does the dark
wing get colder than the white wing?

If it's a microscopic temperature difference because of star twinkle and
ambient light pollution from the surrounding city, I can see that. However,
a number of degrees between the white wing and the dark wing at night? Nope,
I still don't get it.

Montblack

Rob

February 11th 05, 06:06 PM

>What I don't get is: Two wings of identical design and an identical
starting
>temp, both sitting out on a cold February night (no sun). How does the
dark
>wing get colder than the white wing?

Visible light and infrared radiation (heat) are both forms of
electromagnetic radiation, they just have different values of
frequency/wavelength. Objects that are absorptive or reflective of
radiation in the visible spectrum can (but don't necessarily) also
exhibit the same or similar properties of absorption or reflection of
radiation in the infrared spectrum. I think. :)

-R

Peter

February 11th 05, 06:29 PM

AES wrote:

> You guys are into some interesting physics here. Do the plane wings
> frost even when the surrounding air is above 32 F because their net heat
> transfer to the surrounding above-freezing air is not as strong as their
> net radiative heat transfer to the cold sky?

No, it's not necessary for the heat transfer to the night sky to be
"stronger", just for it to be a significant effect. According to:
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/calc_2bodies_enclosure.cfm
the radiative temperature of the clear night sky is about -150 F, so
if the wing surface got no heating from its surroundings and reached
thermal equilibrium with the night sky then it would cool to -150 F.
On the other hand, if it didn't lose any radiational heat to the sky
but was in complete equilibrium with the ambient air temperature that
dropped to a low of 40F, then that would have been its lowest
temperature. In reality, both effects occur. It gets some heating
from the surrounding air and also conduction from other parts of the
wing and plane, but it also loses some heat through radiation to the
cold night sky. The resulting temperature is therefore somewhere
between +40 F and -150 F and in practice probably around 25F - 30F on
a perfectly clear night and very close to 40F on a cloudy night.

> (which should also imply
> equally strong net heat connectivity to the ground below, is that not
> so?)

Yes, for the bottom surface of the wing. I wouldn't expect ice to form
on that surface on nights where neither the air nor ground temperatures
drop below freezing.
>
> Or do they acquire and retain frost because some colder and therefore
> heavier below-freezing air just fell down on them at some earlier time?

In that case a thermometer registering the ambient air temperature
should also record this below-freezing temperature sometime during
the night. But the lowest temperature recorded on the night in
question was reported to be +40F.
>
> I'll wait for an authoritative answer, but bet on the latter explanation.

How much? :)

Robert M. Gary

February 11th 05, 07:13 PM

I don't follow the workload issue. Yes, the Mooney may require a bit
more skill to land but in cruise I've not noticed it flying much
different than an Arrow (just faster). I've had both, I love my Mooney
best. The Mooney is the ideal plane for tall guys like me. My partner
is of average size and finds it difficult to find the rabbit on the ILS
and see over the glareshield as well as trying to reach the rudders.
Short guys beware. :)

-Robert

Mike Rapoport

February 11th 05, 07:25 PM

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Montblack" > wrote:
>
>>What I don't get is: Two wings of identical design and an identical
>>starting
>>temp, both sitting out on a cold February night (no sun). How does the
>>dark
>>wing get colder than the white wing?
>
> The dark wing radiates heat better than the white wing, so
> it cools more rapidly.
>
I thought that bodies radiated EM energy based on the relative temperature
irrespective of color? Darker bodies *absorbed* more visible spectrum
radiation but there was no difference in radiating energy. Is this wrong?

Mike
MU-2

jim rosinski

February 11th 05, 07:35 PM

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I thought that bodies radiated EM energy based on the relative
> temperature irrespective of color? Darker bodies *absorbed* more
> visible spectrum radiation but there was no difference in
> radiating energy. Is this wrong?

Nope, you're right. See www.azsolarcenter.com/design/pas-1.html for an
explanation. One relevant quote from that site:

"The extent to which a material emits thermal energy depends both on
the temperature of the material and nature of its surface. Polished
metal surfaces are poor emitters and poor absorbers of thermal energy."

Maybe not clear from the brief snippet I quoted, but when they talk
about "nature of the material surface" they don't mean color.

Jim Rosinski

Mike Rapoport

February 11th 05, 07:39 PM

I agree. Having lived 40nm south of Reno for five years, I would say that
it is no place for IMC flying in any piston single, by any pilot. The only
IMC there consists of thunderstorms or clouds containing ice (or both) along
with lots of turbulence (tow planes and gliders have ended up facing each
other head on!). The current theory around Reno (I was there yesterday) is
that the pilot thought he could climb on top since the tops weren't forecast
to be too high. This strategy probably would have worked during daytime
when the clouds are visible. When I had a Turbo Lance, I used to use this
strategy to cross the mountains on top VFR at about 15,000 and then descend
near Sacramento where tops were often below 5000'. I never depended on
being able to see clouds at night over unlit terrain. In the case of the
accident airplane the tops forecast was wrong and the pilot didn't realize
it until he had bet his life.

There is nothing wrong with Cirrus' deicing system. A TKS type sytem is
pretty much immune from being overwhelmed by icing because the fluid runs
back and protects the entire wing. In that respect it is superior to boots
or heated leading edges where ice can form behind the protected surface.
Granted, TKS doesn't have unlimited duration but that should not be a
problem in practice. THe only way it doesn't work is if it is broken, out
of fluid, turned off or not installed.

Mike
MU-2

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "houstondan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> i like that analogy. i'm sorta suprised noone has gotten on the cirrus
>> guys' comment that they have a really excellent icing system...the
>> saying it's only good for an hour or so to find somewhere to land.
>> huh?? do you suspect they might phrase that a little different in the
>> sales talk?? i would be interested in knowing how many times that pilot
>> had made that trip in those "approximate" conditions, relied on that
>> "excellent" icing system and did just fine.
>>
>
> Night, mountains, ice, inexperienced pilot? Could be just simple task
> saturation followed by panic followed by disorientation with 'chute
> deployment too late to make a difference. It's awful soon to speculate the
> deicing system is bum.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[email protected]

February 11th 05, 07:40 PM

This is a classic heat transfer problem from college engineering. The
heat transfered by radiation is proportional to the emissivity of the surface.
Most paint emissivities range from .98 for flat black to as low as .8 for some
very shiny paints. Oxidized aluminum, like my plane, would run .25, while a
highly polished aluminum surface could be as low as .04.

The other part of the heat transfer equation is that the transfer is
proportional to the ratio of the temperatures to the fourth power. That is
why something as far away as the sun is such a great heat source. It's
temperature is very high.

Finally, the radiant heat transfer is effected by the "view" of one surface to
the other. This part is very complicated to calculate, depending on the
geometry. I never was worth a crap at this part of the calculations.

Have fun,
tom pettit

>> radiation-induced cooling and icing than a dark-colored plane would be,
>> all else being equal.
>
>
>I get the sun heating darker surfaces up (many degrees!) more than an
>identical white surface.
>
>What I don't get is: Two wings of identical design and an identical starting
>temp, both sitting out on a cold February night (no sun). How does the dark
>wing get colder than the white wing?

Mike Rapoport

February 11th 05, 07:45 PM

I have a friend with perhaps 300hrs TT and an instrument rating who is
buying a new SR20. The insurance company wants 25hrs make and model before
solo and another 25hrs before carrying passengers.

Mike
MU-2

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> insurance? of course. seems that the insurance companies would be
> pretty good judges of the aircraft. what do they have to say? any
> special stuff beyond what they demand on similar aircraft and yes, i
> just realized that "similar" might be sticky.
>
> dan
>

Mike Rapoport

February 11th 05, 07:49 PM

"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
>I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
>point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I
>am sure glad I did.
>
> The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way
> beyond the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
> typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
> school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
> somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way
> through February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives
> already this year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies
> with a vengeance.
>
> I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
> crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
> production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
> during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of
> bugs. A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in
> rare, unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days,
> months and even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky
> never to recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code
> execution that causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system.
> However, in a real-world production environment, with thousands of users,
> the probability of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the
> fun begins.
>
> The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious
> the programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit
> that an occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the
> software, not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my
> colleagues.
>
> It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
> that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the
> grim statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them
> bugs must be fixed before more people die.
>
> -- City Dweller
> Post-solo Student Pilot
> (soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)
>

If the accidents were very similiar, I would say that they would support
your hypothesis, but I don't think that there is a common thread that runs
though the accidents. If 16yr old drivers have a high accident rate driving
red Corvettes off cliffs, does that mean that the color red is attracted to
the bottom of cliffs?

Mike
MU-2

John Harper

February 11th 05, 07:53 PM

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with Cirrus' deicing system. A TKS type sytem is
> pretty much immune from being overwhelmed by icing because the fluid runs
> back and protects the entire wing.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

But surely in this case it MUST have been overwhelmed, otherwise why
would he have crashed?

I was thinking of getting the TKS system on my 182 once it is
certificated, but this has pretty much put me off.

John

John Harper

February 11th 05, 07:55 PM

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with Cirrus' deicing system. A TKS type
sytem is
> pretty much immune from being overwhelmed by icing because the fluid
runs
> back and protects the entire wing.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

But surely in this case it MUST have been overwhelmed, otherwise why
would he have crashed?

I was thinking of getting the TKS system on my 182 once it is
certificated, but this has pretty much put me off.

John

Mike Rapoport

February 11th 05, 07:57 PM

"City Dweller" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I am getting the Diamond DA40 Star. Slower than the SR22 and even SR20,
> but its safety record is impeccable.
>
> Now back to the bug question: I too agree that there is nothing wrong
> with the Cirrus design, but that does not mean it can't have bugs.
>
> A few weeks ago I watched a great program on TLC about NTSB's effort to
> investigate a series of 737 crashes more than a decade ago. After years
> of meticulous and thorough "debugging", the did find a bug in that
> aircraft -- a tiny-teeny rudder valve which sometimes jams. You can
> read more about it here:
>
> http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/flight427/s_247850.html
>
> Unfortunately, you can't expect that level of effort on NTSB's part
> when investigating the crashes of small potatoes like the Cirrus, and
> that's a shame. Cirrus will have to do it themselves, or risk having
> their entire fleet grounded.
>
>
> -- City Dweller

True, but the 737 accidents were similiar, pointing to a similiar cause.

If an *inexperienced*, *probably fatigued*, pilot takes off into *known
icing*, *over mountains*, *at night* to fly over an *area known for weather
inhospitable to flying*, and crashes...I can think of a lot more likely
explanations than there being some weird flaw in a mechanical system.

Mike
MU-2

Morgans

February 11th 05, 08:16 PM

"John Harper" > wrote
>
>
> But surely in this case it MUST have been overwhelmed, otherwise why
> would he have crashed?
>
> I was thinking of getting the TKS system on my 182 once it is
> certificated, but this has pretty much put me off.
>
> John

There could have been a million other things. Could have been severe hail,
spatial disorientation, airframe failure due to turbulence, or 999,997
other things.
--
Jim in NC

Michael

February 11th 05, 08:58 PM

> I don't follow the workload issue. Yes, the Mooney may require a bit
> more skill to land but in cruise I've not noticed it flying much
> different than an Arrow (just faster).

I realize that once you reach a certain level of experience it is hard
to tell the difference, but flying in cruise (IMC) is, IMO, more
difficult in the Mooney. It takes more cycles to have a good overall
scan going and hold altitude and heading, especially in turbulence.
Also, going faster means that you have less time to make decisions as
you proceed into bad weather. Those two issues, IMO, would lead to a
higher accident rate in the Mooney, especially for low time pilots.

Michael

Michael

February 11th 05, 09:08 PM

> I have a friend with perhaps 300hrs TT and an instrument rating who
is
> buying a new SR20. The insurance company wants 25hrs make and model
before
> solo and another 25hrs before carrying passengers.

That's typical of what is being required these days for Bonanzas and
such. I think the insurance companies have finally figured out that
they're dealing with a fixed gear Bonanza, not a fast C-182.

Michael

jim rosinski

February 11th 05, 09:18 PM

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> >"The extent to which a material emits thermal energy depends both on
> >the temperature of the material and nature of its surface. Polished
> >metal surfaces are poor emitters and poor absorbers of thermal
energy."
> >
> >Maybe not clear from the brief snippet I quoted, but when they talk
> >about "nature of the material surface" they don't mean color.
>
> They mean color and other surface characteristics - mainly
> shiny vs. rough.

I think much of the confusion has to do with an implication by someone
(or inference drawan by readers) earlier in this thread that surface
color was just as important a factor in determining the extent of
radiational cooling at night as it is in determining solar absorption
during the day. Can we all agree that this is incorrect? If so, can you
quantify the extent to which color is important in determining cooling
rates at night? I always thought the importance was zero, or nearly so.

Jim Rosinski

Peter R.

February 11th 05, 09:35 PM

John Harper > wrote:

> But surely in this case it MUST have been overwhelmed, otherwise why
> would he have crashed?

A few reasons come to mind.

Perhaps the fluid ran out on climb out or just after level off. IIRC, the
Cirrus TKS system is equipped with the smallest glycol reservoir available,
somewhere between 45 minutes and one hour of endurance, depending on
whether it is run at DE-ICE or ANTI-ICE mode.

If you look at the TKS web site, you will see that the systems available
for the other STC-ed aircraft have much larger Glycol reservoirs. I do not
know why Cirrus chose the smallest reservoir. Probably it had something to
do with maximizing useable weight while still providing some type of ice
protection.

Furthermore, there is no information available yet as to whether the Glycol
reservoir was even topped off prior to this ill-fated flight. Like fuel, a
pilot with a TKS-equipped aircraft must include in the preflight an
understanding of how much Glycol is in the tank and to what endurance this
equates. If the pilot used some of the fluid coming into that airport and
failed to top it off, the minimal endurance of his Cirrus' TKS system has
been reduced even further.

Another unknown is whether this pilot's preflighted the system. A pilot
launching into potential icing conditions should preflight the system on
the ground by turning it on high to observe the flow rate from all leading
edges.

If the system is not run periodically (monthly or so), it is possible that
the membranes behind the leading edge mesh will dry out, reducing or
eliminating the flow rate. Running a Glycol-soaked rag over the mesh as
the system is running will "re-energize" the membranes, should the pilot
discover this problem.

Was all of this done on that ill-fated flight? We will probably never
know.

> I was thinking of getting the TKS system on my 182 once it is
> certificated, but this has pretty much put me off.

You should really think again. I have the TKS system on my Bonanza V35.
While it is not certified for known ice, the system does an *incredible*
job in unexpected icing encounters, exactly for the reasons Mike R. pointed
out. As long as the system is maintained and the Glycol reservoir filled,
a pilot of a low-wing, retractable gear aircraft won't even know if the
aircraft is picking up ice when the system is on.

BTW, the TKS reservoir in my aircraft is 7.5 gallons, or around 4 hours
when set to the ANTI-ICE setting.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R.

February 11th 05, 09:40 PM

"Peter R." > wrote:

> As long as the system is maintained and the Glycol reservoir filled,
> a pilot of a low-wing, retractable gear aircraft won't even know if the
> aircraft is picking up ice when the system is on.

Sorry, my bad: I should have typed, "... the pilot of a low-wing,
retractable gear aircraft won't even realize the aircraft is in icing
conditions with the system running because the aircraft will be completely
free of ice."

Fire the editor...

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve.T

February 12th 05, 02:47 AM

I might be getting here a bit late, but the reason that the SR71 was
painted black (and called the Black Bird) was because it needed to
radiate the maximum it could on the ground to get rid of the heat of
flying at Mach 3+.

The plane would actually glow red at altitude.

BTW - according to my sources, and now that the sucker is retired (even
though many things about it are still classified), they did try
different paint schemes, and black was the one that allowed them to get
rid of heat the fastest!

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Steve.T

February 12th 05, 03:02 AM

Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer killer"?

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Steve.T

February 12th 05, 03:09 AM

Jon:

Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
Cosmatology Board.

There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
because I also do software and have for years.

I decided to let the bugs in the software argument go lest I be called
a mainframe bigot.

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Mike Rapoport

February 12th 05, 03:23 AM

"John Harper" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with Cirrus' deicing system. A TKS type sytem is
>> pretty much immune from being overwhelmed by icing because the fluid runs
>> back and protects the entire wing.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
> But surely in this case it MUST have been overwhelmed, otherwise why
> would he have crashed?
>
> I was thinking of getting the TKS system on my 182 once it is
> certificated, but this has pretty much put me off.
>
> John
>

Lots of airplane crash without any ice. The TKS system CAN'T be
overwhelmed. The fluid forms a layer that doesn't stick to either the
airplane or the ice. Makes one wonder if there was any fluid in the system
when he took off.

Mike
MU-2

[email protected]

February 12th 05, 07:45 AM

This sounds like a troll post, but I will respond...

No, I wouldn't. I am a reasonably low time, 215 hour-ish (f/w)
instrument rated PP, and I find the SR20 to be a pretty easy airplane to
fly, given my limited experience with sub-200hp airplanes. Having just
done an hour in a high performance Mooney 231 yesterday (with no
previous logged high-perf time), I can opine that a "simplistic"
airplane such as the SR20 is a LOT easier to manage than the 231, which
is at least roughly comparable performance-wise to the V-Bonanza that
got the reputation you mention.

IMO (as others have said) the Cirrus is getting more negative press than
it deserves due to its "different-ness" as compared to more traditional
light airplanes. It was certificated under different rules than the 2oth
century Cessnas/Pipers/etc. and it will take some time for folks to come
around to this new way of thinking about what's safe.

The bottom line is - if I was going to buy an airplane, I'd look much
more enthusiastically at mid-timed Cirri than equivalent late-model
Cessnas (Pipers are not even on my scope due to the single door).

However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .

Dave Blevins

On 11 Feb 2005 19:02:49 -0800, "Steve.T" > wrote:

>Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer killer"?
>
>Later,
>Steve.T
>PP ASEL/Instrument

Jon Kraus

February 12th 05, 11:08 AM

Steve,

I was just joking about the "engineer" part so (hense the quotes)...
Sorry for the confusion... Since you are just a mainframe programmer I
should have spelled it out better.... (another joke) My bad!! I
thought the software bug comments were very accurate..

I workied on the mainframe for years... They suck!! Tandem is the way
to go....

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Mooney 201 4443H

Steve.T wrote:

> Jon:
>
> Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
> Cosmatology Board.
>
> There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
> position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
> because I also do software and have for years.
>
> I decided to let the bugs in the software argument go lest I be called
> a mainframe bigot.
>
> Later,
> Steve.T
> PP ASEL/Instrument
>

C J Campbell

February 12th 05, 03:19 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
> that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:

Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.
Consider the Bonanza, for instance, which went through a period where it
seemed like it was practically raining aluminum. The Cessna P210 also had
its problems like that. They are all good airplanes, but their greater
capabilities have tended to encourage pilots to fly into conditions that
they should not.

I know a pilot who wants a Cessna 337 with boots, "just in case" he
encounters icing. Well, the 337 is not certified for known ice, even with
boots. If he buys such a plane, I can practically guarantee that eventually
he will fly into ice. It is not simply a matter of accidentally flying into
ice, but the fact that he has boots will encourage him to fly into
conditions that he would not consider acceptable otherwise. There is nothing
"just in case" about it, even though that is how thinks of it in his mind.
He will believe that his icing encounter is accidental, and thank God that
he had boots on his plane. But the fact remains that he will have flown when
he would not have otherwise. If he does it often enough, and gets away with
it, then eventually he will get into trouble.

The same could be said for every other hazard in general aviation: low level
maneuvering, VFR into IMC, flying with broken equipment, etc. You know that
you don't really need that vacuum pump; it is just a short cross country and
you know the way like the back of your hand, so you go. Of course nothing
happens; it was a great flight. So next time you try it but the cloud cover
is a little lower. Next time you were just skimming the bottoms of the
clouds, but nothing happened. It gets to be a regular practice, then
suddenly your laziness, complacency, and need to get there all combine to
get you in serious trouble. You will really wish you had fixed the vacuum
pump, that you had paid more attention to the weather, that you had filed
IFR, that you had decided to stay home, etc. Every link in the chain of
events leading up to the accident had been there for many flights, but this
time it got you. You did not just wake up one morning and say, "Today I am
going to fly VFR into IMC without a vacuum pump," because you know that is
incredibly stupid. But you did something incredibly stupid anyway. And let
me be clear about this: the pilots who do this are not bad pilots or stupid
pilots or greenies. To the contrary, they are typically the most experienced
and capable pilots. The real problem is that they learned the wrong lessons
from their experience.

All right, Cirrus tells pilots that their parachute system can save their
lives. Their salesmen will tell say that it can save your butt if you are
IFR in the mountains at night when the engine quits. So it might. But what
is the message here? Cirrus is teaching pilots to fly IFR in the mountains
at night in a single engine plane. They are effectively saying that it is
safe to do so because the Cirrus has a parachute. Perhaps the engine has
been running rough, or the AI does not seem up to par, but you have your
little ace in the hole, right? So they go. Next they take off into low level
IMC and/or ice and/or without doing a proper instrument check and they are
found later in the day a mile from the end of the runway with bits of that
parachute all around them. They got into trouble, were still too low for
effective CAPS deployment, and died. Did Cirrus intend for them to do that?
No, but they encouraged that behavior by selling the CAPS system.

I don't mean to imply that CAPS is a bad idea. I would like to see it on
other planes, along with air bags, better crashworthiness, advanced
avionics, and all the rest. But these should not be sold as a means of
escaping the consequences of your own bad judgment. Airliners have fantastic
redundancy and safety capability, but their pilots do not have bad accident
records, despite the fact that these aircraft are arguably much more
complex, faster, and less maneuverable than anything in GA.

Professional pilots and general aviation pilots are separated not so much by
the differences in equipment and capabilities of their aircraft (though
these are enormous) but by training and supervision. An airline pilot who
takes too many risks is likely to come to the attention of others who can do
something about it. A GA pilot may become the subject of hangar gossip, but
he is likely to continue doing whatever it is that he is doing. An airline
pilot is largely locked into rigid rules and procedures that he must
follow -- a lot of his decisions were made for him a long time ago. The GA
pilot has considerably more freedom to bend his personal rules, if he has
any at all. He has considerably less guidance, and when he has a problem he
can't always call up dispatch or maintenance to ask their opinion.
Loneliness, less training, no simulator training, inferior or aging
equipment, fatigue, complacency, manufacturers' safety claims, alcohol and
other personal problems: all these add together to create general aviation's
terrible accident record.

John and Martha King, among others, have been attacking this problem head
on. These pilots and instructors are no longer willing to say that general
aviation is safe, because they know what a dangerous message that is. Flying
is dangerous. The pilot who forgets that is even more dangerous. The Kings
have a rule: "the most chicken pilot wins." I like that rule. It should be
expanded even to passengers. "The most chicken person on board wins." That
is, if anyone is even slightly uncomfortable about the flight, then the
flight does not go, no questions asked. Modern methods of teaching risk
management and scenario based training are taking far too long to be adopted
by the training community. We need this, and we need better simulators for
general aviation, and we need better recurrent training. If we had those
things, I think that we could go a long way toward cutting the accident
rate.

Ron Garret

February 12th 05, 03:59 PM

In article >,
"C J Campbell" > wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
> > that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:
>
> Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.

Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive
faster in worse conditions thinking that the ABS will keep them out of
trouble.

> "the most chicken pilot wins." I like that rule.

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere and decide what is an
acceptable risk, otherwise you'll never get out of your house, let alone
off the ground. After all, you can get killed by a Tsunami just sitting
on the beach. Sometimes **** happens, and the whole point of spending
money on fancy avionics and getting your instrument ticket is so you
don't have to wait for CAVU conditions to fly.

This is not to say that launching into known icing in the mountains at
night is a good idea under any circumstances, but "the most chicken
pilot wins" is, I think, going a little too far towards the opposite
extreme.

I tell my passengers that flying is as safe as one cares to make it,
that most people who die in planes die because the pilot did something
stupid, like run out of fuel, or fly beyond his or her capabilities, and
that I am very, very careful to avoid the stupid things. And yes,
there's the parachute (I fly a Cirrus). But none of these things are
absolute guarantees. Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight (particularly given the way I
drive). The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few people
ever give that a second thought.

rg

Ron Garret

February 12th 05, 04:10 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .

I have logged half an hour of 'copter time, and frankly they scare the
pants off me. (It was a sight to see, let me tell you.) My
understanding is that:

1. If you take your hand off the stick, you die.

2. If you within some (fairly large) envelope of unsafe combinations of
altitude and airspeed and your engine fails, you die.

3. If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
seconds, you die, even if you were in the "safe" range of altitude and
airspeed to begin with.

Is that correct? A copter pilot friend of mine told me this years ago,
but it occurred to me that he may have been exaggerating to make himself
look studly. So I thought I'd do a little reality check here. Any
'copter pilots here that can set me straight?

rg

Jose

February 12th 05, 04:16 PM

> If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
> seconds, you die

If the engine fails and you don't notice, you are already dead.

Jose

Jose

February 12th 05, 04:18 PM

> Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
> the most dangerous part of any flight

Actually I think that's a myth. There are more car accidents, but there
are more car trips, car miles, and car hours too. By the time you
divide it out (and it can be argued exactly what to divide out), spam
can flying probably does not turn out to be more safe than driving yourself.

Jose

kage

February 12th 05, 04:23 PM

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
>> > that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:
>>
>> Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.
>
> Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
> breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive

I've never had my antilock brakes break.

Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
> the most dangerous part of any flight (particularly given the way I
> drive). The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
> the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few people
> ever give that a second thought.

No. Flying a light airplane is MANY times more dangerous than driving to the
airport.

Karl

Matt Barrow

February 12th 05, 04:41 PM

"Steve.T" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jon:
>
> Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
> Cosmatology Board.
>
> There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
> position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
> because I also do software and have for years.

Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I
know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with
dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a
certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers using
the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software is
developed.

It's like calling someone as "combustible refuse engineer" when they really
are just a garbageman.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Ron Garret

February 12th 05, 05:14 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
> > the most dangerous part of any flight
>
> Actually I think that's a myth. There are more car accidents, but there
> are more car trips, car miles, and car hours too. By the time you
> divide it out (and it can be argued exactly what to divide out), spam
> can flying probably does not turn out to be more safe than driving yourself.

As you say, it depends on how you count. Do you count total accidents?
Accidents per participant? Accidents per hour? Per mile? Per
passenger mile? But the more significant factor is, I think: do you
count the accidents that were caused by circumstances that you never
place yourself in? Do you count Vmc accidents in twins if you never fly
a twin? Do you count fuel exhaustion and inadvertent VFR into IMC if
you are absolutely religious about checking your fuel, having plenty of
margin, have an instrument rating, stay current, and always file IFR if
there's a cloud within 500 nm? Do you count stall-spin accidents in
Tomahawks if you fly a Cirrus? Do you count icing accidents in the
mountains at night if...?

It's probably true that if you fly and drive with the same mindset that
flying more dangerous. But the way *I* fly and the way *I* drive,
getting to the airport is definitely the scary part. And I'm pretty
sure that I'm far from unique.

rg

Dan Luke

February 12th 05, 05:39 PM

Ron Garret wrote:

> Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
> the most dangerous part of any flight

No, not for private flying. Not even close. The fatal accident rate for
flying is several times (as much as 700%) higher.

You may be thinking of the comparison between driving and scheduled
airline travel.

> The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
> the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few
> people
> ever give that a second thought.

That is because an individual's statistical risk of dying in an auto
crash is quite small. You are confusing accident rates with accident
totals.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Bob Noel

February 12th 05, 06:06 PM

In article >, "kage" >
wrote:

> No. Flying a light airplane is MANY times more dangerous than driving to the
> airport.

unless I ride my motorcycle...

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

scotta2728

February 12th 05, 06:34 PM

I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
hours flown in each type.

Anyway, hope I'm not intruding on your forum, but interesting to see we
have the same discussions.

Best Regards. Fly safe.

--
scotta2728
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Newps

February 12th 05, 06:42 PM

Ron Garret wrote:

>
>
> As you say, it depends on how you count. Do you count total accidents?
> Accidents per participant? Accidents per hour? Per mile? Per
> passenger mile?

It doesn't matter what or how you count as long as both forms of
transportation are counted the same. And when you do that you will see
flying is many times more dangerous than driving. It's much more
dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

Viperdoc

February 12th 05, 06:43 PM

I have to disagree with the claim that TKS can't be overwhelmed, since I
have it on my Baron. In situations of moderate or greater ice will
accumulate on the leading edges, but then gets mushy and falls off. However,
in severe conditions I would not want to trust my life to the supposition
that TKS makes me invincible.

Peter R.

February 12th 05, 07:00 PM

scotta2728 > wrote:

> I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
> down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
> lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
> accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
> Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
> not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
> in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
> hours flown in each type.

What is the overall tone of the discussions over on the Cirrus group about
this accident?

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Montblack

February 12th 05, 07:05 PM

("Ron Garret" wrote)
>> Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.

> Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
> breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive
> faster in worse conditions thinking that the ABS will keep them out of
> trouble.

Car and Driver Magazine -The Steering Column:

The greatest advance in safety since seatbelts.
BY CSABA CSERE
February 2005

http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=60884

(From the linked article)
Two recent traffic-safety studies have thrown all of us in the auto whirl
for a loop. Last September, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released
independent studies showing that electronic stability-control (ESC) systems,
which help drivers maintain control when their vehicles start to slide, have
a profoundly positive effect on the frequency and severity of single-vehicle
accidents.

The NHTSA study found that vehicles fitted with ESC had 42 percent fewer
single-vehicle crashes and 40 percent fewer fatalities in those crashes. The
IIHS study results were even more positive, with single-vehicle crashes
declining by 41 percent and fatalities in such crashes plunging by 56
percent.

With more than 15,000 fatalities in single-vehicle crashes annually, these
results suggest that if every vehicle in America were equipped with ESC,
annual fatalities would be reduced by more than 7000. That's huge—more than
three times the number of lives saved each year by airbags.

Montblack

Peter R.

February 12th 05, 07:09 PM

Viperdoc > wrote:

> However, in severe conditions I would not want to trust my
> life to the supposition that TKS makes me invincible.

I cannot imagine there is any technology that makes a pilot "invincible."

Even a condom is not 100% failsafe.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Colin W Kingsbury

February 12th 05, 07:18 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve.T" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Jon:
> >
> > Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
> > Cosmatology Board.
> >
> > There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
> > position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
> > because I also do software and have for years.
>
> Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I
> know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with
> dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a
> certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers using
> the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software is
> developed.

Yes, and we all know that having a government-issued license is such a
strong indicator of quality. Licensing is what happens when an industry
matures and transitions from an entrepreneurial to a guild mindset. Did John
Augustus Roebling have a license?

Having led many software projects, I will tell you that the "engineers" are
usually the ones most incensed by taking shortcuts in quality. The fact is
that the market has traditionally rewarded those who got to market first
with the most features rather than those who made the least buggy software.
It costs a *lot* to build very high-quality software. If the market would
tolerate buildings that collapsed 10% of the time but cost 90% less to
build, we'd see buildings falling down as often as Windows crashes.

-cwk.

Jose

February 12th 05, 08:34 PM

>>
As you say, it depends on how you count. Do you count total accidents?
Accidents per participant? Accidents per hour? Per mile? Per
passenger mile?
<<

You could do any of these, but you have to do the same thing on the top
and bottom, and with cars as well as planes. Include busses if you
include non-spamcans.

>>
But the more significant factor is, I think: do you
count the accidents that were caused by circumstances that you never
place yourself in?
<<

You discount accidents that don't apply (such as helicopters and jumbo
jets, perhaps). But you don't discount accidents that result from
errors "you'd never make".

>> Do you count Vmc accidents in twins if you never fly a twin?

Don't count twin accidents at all. Don't divide by the number of twin
hours (miles, whatever) either.

>>
Do you count fuel exhaustion and inadvertent VFR into IMC if
you are absolutely religious about checking your fuel, having plenty of
margin, have an instrument rating, stay current, and always file IFR if
there's a cloud within 500 nm?
<<

Yep. That's a case of "it will never happen to me" wherein it just
might happen to you. That's the definition of "accident".

>> Do you count stall-spin accidents in Tomahawks if you fly a Cirrus?

Probably. You can stall-spin a cirrus. It obeys the same laws of
aerodynamics.

>> Do you count icing accidents in the mountains at night if...?

It depends on what lie you want to promulgate. :) If you want to
figure out the truth of the matter, it is important to ask the right
questions. You need enough data to be meaningful, and you need to pare
it enough to be relevant.

Jose

Ron Garret

February 12th 05, 08:58 PM

In article >,
"Montblack" > wrote:

> ("Ron Garret" wrote)
> >> Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.
>
> > Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
> > breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive
> > faster in worse conditions thinking that the ABS will keep them out of
> > trouble.
>
>
> Car and Driver Magazine -The Steering Column:
>
> The greatest advance in safety since seatbelts.
> BY CSABA CSERE
> February 2005
>
> http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=60884
>
> (From the linked article)
> Two recent traffic-safety studies have thrown all of us in the auto whirl
> for a loop. Last September, the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released
> independent studies showing that electronic stability-control (ESC) systems,
> which help drivers maintain control when their vehicles start to slide, have
> a profoundly positive effect on the frequency and severity of single-vehicle
> accidents.

Interesting. This prompted me to look into this more, and I found this:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1944/#ABS

So it seems that it's not clear cut even for ABS.

As for overall accident rates for GA vs driving, it's true that looking
at the raw numbers GA is more dangerous (~1 fatality per 100,000 flight
hours (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-144.html) vs 1
fatality per 100 million passenger miles
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00015.htm)). It's a little tricky
converting from flight hours to passenger miles because you have to
assume a lot about occupancy rates and vehicle speeds, but no matter how
you slice it there are no reasonable assumptions that lead to GA being
safer overall than driving. (But you can slice the numbers in lots of
really bizarre ways, e.g.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1084316012962)

I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you
ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid,
like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or
enough fuel. Unfortunately, the NTSB reports don't break the statistics
down into stupid and non-stupid.

rg

Steve.T

February 12th 05, 09:38 PM

Actually, I'm not a troll.

You did catch my point, partly. One of the things that happens when you
have strong willed people who do not want to know all the details, they
just want things done, when the details have to be handled, there is no
one to delegate to.

So when these "hi-powered" people got into a fast a/c, they learned
enough to get sign-offs (if they were even required at that time), and
then went out and bent metal.

My thinking is, are we seeing a new version of this kind of behavior? A
very capable machine, in un-experienced hands, with a gotta-get-there
mindset, parachute will save the day...

I'm starting to see why my insurance company has changed the way it
thinks. 2 years ago I could get insurance for a C-210 if I got 10 hours
in type (just over 200 TT then). Now, they want much much more ($$$ and
time) - and I have over 330, and complex time (working on commercial).

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Newps

February 12th 05, 10:57 PM

scotta2728 wrote:

> I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
> down in icing conditions,

Strike one.

at night,

Strike two.

in the mountains.

Strike three, you're dead.

There has been a
> lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
> accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
> Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
> not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
> in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
> hours flown in each type.

About a million to one difference. As far as statistics go every Cirrus
crash is a bad deal because there's so few of them out there compared to
182's. Every wreck has a definite movement of the stats. One 182 wreck
doesn't move the stats at all.

[email protected]

February 12th 05, 10:59 PM

Would it be ironic if Cirrus marketed an identical bird without the
CAPS that wound up having a significantly better accident record?

a.

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm
convinced
> > that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:
>
> Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.
> Consider the Bonanza, for instance, which went through a period where
it
> seemed like it was practically raining aluminum. The Cessna P210 also
had
> its problems like that. They are all good airplanes, but their
greater
> capabilities have tended to encourage pilots to fly into conditions
that
> they should not.
>
> I know a pilot who wants a Cessna 337 with boots, "just in case" he
> encounters icing. Well, the 337 is not certified for known ice, even
with
> boots. If he buys such a plane, I can practically guarantee that
eventually
> he will fly into ice. It is not simply a matter of accidentally
flying into
> ice, but the fact that he has boots will encourage him to fly into
> conditions that he would not consider acceptable otherwise. There is
nothing
> "just in case" about it, even though that is how thinks of it in his
mind.
> He will believe that his icing encounter is accidental, and thank God
that
> he had boots on his plane. But the fact remains that he will have
flown when
> he would not have otherwise. If he does it often enough, and gets
away with
> it, then eventually he will get into trouble.
>
> The same could be said for every other hazard in general aviation:
low level
> maneuvering, VFR into IMC, flying with broken equipment, etc. You
know that
> you don't really need that vacuum pump; it is just a short cross
country and
> you know the way like the back of your hand, so you go. Of course
nothing
> happens; it was a great flight. So next time you try it but the cloud
cover
> is a little lower. Next time you were just skimming the bottoms of
the
> clouds, but nothing happened. It gets to be a regular practice, then
> suddenly your laziness, complacency, and need to get there all
combine to
> get you in serious trouble. You will really wish you had fixed the
vacuum
> pump, that you had paid more attention to the weather, that you had
filed
> IFR, that you had decided to stay home, etc. Every link in the chain
of
> events leading up to the accident had been there for many flights,
but this
> time it got you. You did not just wake up one morning and say, "Today
I am
> going to fly VFR into IMC without a vacuum pump," because you know
that is
> incredibly stupid. But you did something incredibly stupid anyway.
And let
> me be clear about this: the pilots who do this are not bad pilots or
stupid
> pilots or greenies. To the contrary, they are typically the most
experienced
> and capable pilots. The real problem is that they learned the wrong
lessons
> from their experience.
>
> All right, Cirrus tells pilots that their parachute system can save
their
> lives. Their salesmen will tell say that it can save your butt if you
are
> IFR in the mountains at night when the engine quits. So it might. But
what
> is the message here? Cirrus is teaching pilots to fly IFR in the
mountains
> at night in a single engine plane. They are effectively saying that
it is
> safe to do so because the Cirrus has a parachute. Perhaps the engine
has
> been running rough, or the AI does not seem up to par, but you have
your
> little ace in the hole, right? So they go. Next they take off into
low level
> IMC and/or ice and/or without doing a proper instrument check and
they are
> found later in the day a mile from the end of the runway with bits of
that
> parachute all around them. They got into trouble, were still too low
for
> effective CAPS deployment, and died. Did Cirrus intend for them to do
that?
> No, but they encouraged that behavior by selling the CAPS system.
>
> I don't mean to imply that CAPS is a bad idea. I would like to see it
on
> other planes, along with air bags, better crashworthiness, advanced
> avionics, and all the rest. But these should not be sold as a means
of
> escaping the consequences of your own bad judgment. Airliners have
fantastic
> redundancy and safety capability, but their pilots do not have bad
accident
> records, despite the fact that these aircraft are arguably much more
> complex, faster, and less maneuverable than anything in GA.
>
> Professional pilots and general aviation pilots are separated not so
much by
> the differences in equipment and capabilities of their aircraft
(though
> these are enormous) but by training and supervision. An airline pilot
who
> takes too many risks is likely to come to the attention of others who
can do
> something about it. A GA pilot may become the subject of hangar
gossip, but
> he is likely to continue doing whatever it is that he is doing. An
airline
> pilot is largely locked into rigid rules and procedures that he must
> follow -- a lot of his decisions were made for him a long time ago.
The GA
> pilot has considerably more freedom to bend his personal rules, if he
has
> any at all. He has considerably less guidance, and when he has a
problem he
> can't always call up dispatch or maintenance to ask their opinion.
> Loneliness, less training, no simulator training, inferior or aging
> equipment, fatigue, complacency, manufacturers' safety claims,
alcohol and
> other personal problems: all these add together to create general
aviation's
> terrible accident record.
>
> John and Martha King, among others, have been attacking this problem
head
> on. These pilots and instructors are no longer willing to say that
general
> aviation is safe, because they know what a dangerous message that is.
Flying
> is dangerous. The pilot who forgets that is even more dangerous. The
Kings
> have a rule: "the most chicken pilot wins." I like that rule. It
should be
> expanded even to passengers. "The most chicken person on board wins."
That
> is, if anyone is even slightly uncomfortable about the flight, then
the
> flight does not go, no questions asked. Modern methods of teaching
risk
> management and scenario based training are taking far too long to be
adopted
> by the training community. We need this, and we need better
simulators for
> general aviation, and we need better recurrent training. If we had
those
> things, I think that we could go a long way toward cutting the
accident
> rate.

Matt Barrow

February 12th 05, 11:47 PM

"scotta2728" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
> down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
> lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
> accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
> Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
> not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
> in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
> hours flown in each type.

How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's? The 182 is the
second most popular airplane out there.

I'd venture to

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

George Patterson

February 12th 05, 11:53 PM

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you
> ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid,
> like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or
> enough fuel. Unfortunately, the NTSB reports don't break the statistics
> down into stupid and non-stupid.

Neither do the people that track auto accidents. You can't eliminate the auto
accidents caused by people doing something stupid, so don't omit the stupid
aviation accidents either.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

George Patterson

February 12th 05, 11:54 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's?

For the last few years, production figures have been about the same for both
birds.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Matt Barrow

February 13th 05, 12:07 AM

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> > Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I
> > know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with
> > dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a
> > certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers
using
> > the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software
is
> > developed.
>
> Yes, and we all know that having a government-issued license is such a
> strong indicator of quality.

Non-sequitur.

> Licensing is what happens when an industry
> matures and transitions from an entrepreneurial to a guild mindset.

It's also what happens, hopefully, when the software industry matures from
bedroom hackers with very light complexity to CMM processes and high levels
of complexity.

> Did John
> Augustus Roebling have a license?

Nope and neither did the guys who designed and built the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge IIRC. ANd neither did the guys who built the pyramids.

> Having led many software projects, I will tell you that the "engineers"
are
> usually the ones most incensed by taking shortcuts in quality. The fact is
> that the market has traditionally rewarded those who got to market first
> with the most features rather than those who made the least buggy
software.

If Windows crashs while surfing the net, it's annoying. When a building or a
bridge collapses, or an ariplane crashes due to mechanical failure, people
die. Think of the WTC and how long the towers stood after taking hits from
fuel laden airplanes.

> It costs a *lot* to build very high-quality software. If the market would
> tolerate buildings that collapsed 10% of the time but cost 90% less to
> build, we'd see buildings falling down as often as Windows crashes.

And the long range costs of software done haphazzardly is...what?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow, CE
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow

February 13th 05, 12:08 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's?
>
> For the last few years, production figures have been about the same for
both
> birds.

Are those statistics only counting recent production aircraft?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Steve.T

February 13th 05, 01:49 AM

Ok, I kinda helped open this box. So let me address a few things so
that interested parties might have some understanding. Otherwise, skip
to the end ("=====") of this posting for some Cirrus related questions.

In the "mainframe" world I'm from, software vendors know they can't get
away with disclaimers that make them exempt from civil suit when their
software doesn't work for the intended purpose. Most all system level
software in the mainframe arena is "certified" to run on a certain
level of an O/S, has lots of regression tests (suites), and validation
testing. Fail a test, you don't make the GA date (that's General
Availability). And before GA there is generally at least one round of
"field" or Beta testing -- where there are specific environmental
considerations done in accepting entities into the tests.

Move up from there to the applications software and things may not be
done so rigorously. But one application can't get into conflict with
another such that the computer system is unstable. If that happens,
then the O/S vendor will be very interested in how an application made
the system unstable.

This type of programming does not accept "memory leaks" that force you
into IPLing (that's a reboot to you PC, MAC, and *nix types). Your
system "leaks" memory and when you hit the max allowed your address
space, the O/S begins the kill process. Only if you have good error
recovery will you avoid MEMTERM.

[I guess for those of you in computers you now know I do "MVS" stuff.]

This is why mainframes run and run and run. This is why mainframe
software costs so much and takes so long to develop. It is done to much
higher standards than most PC software is written.

This is why I'm a bit sensitive to the Software Engineer title - given
too easily to people who are clueless as to architectures and
rationales.

=========

Now back to A/C. What we have is a change in production matterial. This
included a change in designs from other similarly grouped A/C. So now
we have a very slick A/C with glass avionics. Does this require a new
kind of thinking in training?

Or, is the standard of a ballistic parachute causing people to make bad
decisions? If I know that I have an emergency handle I can pull to
magically get me out of trouble, will I fly the A/C beyond my
abilities? Will this thinking put me into the position of thinking that
even if I get disoriented, and have an unusual attitude, that I can
pull the handle and I'm saved?

If I don't recognize that I'm gonna pass the Vne, and I do pass it and
then pull the magic handle, is this what causes the plane to break into
pieces?

I'm asking these questions because I fly a 180HP 4 place plane that
does not have much for anti-icing. Were I to move to a Cirrus with the
weaping wing and parachute and speed and... would I start flying into
stuff I have no business flying into? I know that I've gotten into ice
once and that was after planning so that my IFR climbout would not take
me through ice.

So back to the question I asked earlier, at this time, has Cirrus
produced the new lawyer/doctor killer? Will the insurance companies
demand what is in effect a type rating when moving from steam gauges to
glass? Will they also demand the same for moving to composite type A/C?

Will this be a bad thing, or will it force people to think more about
what they are attempting to do with a nice capable machine?

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Steve.T

February 13th 05, 01:50 AM

Are you an Inspector, Aircraft?

Ron Garret

February 13th 05, 02:39 AM

In article >,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you
> > ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid,
> > like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or
> > enough fuel. Unfortunately, the NTSB reports don't break the statistics
> > down into stupid and non-stupid.
>
> Neither do the people that track auto accidents. You can't eliminate the auto
> accidents caused by people doing something stupid, so don't omit the stupid
> aviation accidents either.
>

OK, I concede the point. Flying is more dangerous than driving. :-(

rg

Jose

February 13th 05, 05:23 AM

> I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you
> ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid,
> like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or
> enough fuel.

It doesn't matter. "Doing something stupid" is not something you can
avoid. You =will= do something stupid in an airplane. At the time you
won't think it's that stupid, you'll have good reasons for doing it,
you'll think you are merely applying your superior skill and superior
equipment to a situation that is within your capabilities. It =will=
happen.

If you are unlucky, the rest of us will put you in the list of pilots
who did something stupid, that none of =us= would do. If you are lucky,
you'll merely think you're a better pilot. You might even have =become=
a better pilot if you realize that what you did was not as clever as you
thought it would be.

I'd bet that most of the pilots that did something stupid did not at the
time think they were doing something stupid.

If you want to eliminate something of the "stupid" stuff.... eliminate
the accidents caused by pilots who did something that =they= thought,
=at=the=time=, was stupid. But that won't eliminate much. :)

Jose

Neil Gould

February 13th 05, 01:28 PM

Recently, C J Campbell > posted:
(an excellent analysis, mostly snipped for brevity)
>
> Modern methods of teaching risk management and
> scenario based training are taking far too long to be adopted by the
> training community. We need this, and we need better simulators for
> general aviation, and we need better recurrent training. If we had
> those things, I think that we could go a long way toward cutting the
> accident rate.
>
As I see it, this very notion is contrary to the way that the general
public looks at almost any activity. Driving a car is dangerous, too, but
we have not seen any simulators or recurrent training requirements to
address this fact. The expansion of GA to include licenses with even less
stringent requirements can be seen as a movement based on the perspective
that flying is not sufficiently dangerous to warrant more safety efforts.
As more of the general population is included in aviation, we can only
expect to see more bad judgement and the related consequences. I don't see
any trend toward limiting access to those who qualify under more strict
rules and requirements.

Regards,

Neil

George Patterson

February 13th 05, 11:29 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Are those statistics only counting recent production aircraft?

Yes. The last thousand or so aircraft from each manufacturer.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Colin W Kingsbury

February 14th 05, 12:31 AM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > >

>
> And the long range costs of software done haphazzardly is...what?
>

Much cheaper products and faster evolution in terms of features. Perhaps the
most famed software development outfit in the business (in terms of quality)
is the Lockmar group that built and maintains the guidance control program
on the Space Shuttle. They know of a small number (5 IIRC) bugs that cannot
be fixed without causing worse problems elsewhere.

Among other things, the computer this program runs on has not changed much
in 20 years- it is basically comparable to an Apple II in terms of
processing power. Second, five or so years ago they did a little accounting
and figured that over the years, the system had cost about $35,000 per line
of code. Now, Windows XP is up into the tens of millions of code by itself,
and MS Office is perhaps twice again as large. Do the math and you see we're
talking numbers into the hundreds of billions. So perfection (or as close to
it as is possible) would cost something like the size of the budget deficit.

While individual users have very little power over a company like MSFT, they
do in fact listen to their big enterprise customers like say Bank of America
who buy licenses tens of thousands at a time. For years, quality was not an
issue because the cost of failures (system crashes) was relatively low. But
this is starting to change because of awareness about security issues, among
other things. A large number of the security flaws that exist in Windows are
symptomatic of slapdash engineering. A virus that takes ten thousand
desktops down costs the BofA probably millions of dollars. So now these CIOs
are telling MSFT that they need to get their act together.

-cwk.

Steve.T

February 14th 05, 12:52 AM

I must politely disagree. And this is very much off topic to this N/G.

I have worked on very large projects (including a tracking system for
NASA). When QA is part of the planning process (that is, a group is
responsible for validation, certification and regression testing),
things are done a bit differently.

When automation is used to test the system being built, testing and the
results come back very quickly. Debugging done by the developers is
more efficient than when it is expected of the support people. The cost
of debugged lines of code drops.

One other thing about software development - high level language coding
vs. assembly language ("machine language") coding. The development
costs are quite high for assembly language, particularly when they have
to work right the first time. But when that development can be done in
high-level languages that have been debugged, cost of development drops
when compared to "machine language" development.

So when software development is controlled and driven by the marketing
arm of a company, too often you get buggy code that has not been
correctly documented. [I've worked under those conditions too.]

Regards,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Michael

February 14th 05, 02:29 AM

> Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer
killer"?

That implies that the Bonanza was the old "doctor/lawyer killer" and I
can't say I'm really comfortable with that description. Any airplane
will kill the unwary. I think that once the insurance companies catch
on to what the Cirrus is, and it looks like they are getting there in a
hurry, the Cirrus will have an accident record no worse (and maybe
slightly better) than the Bonanza and similar airplanes.

And I don't believe there will EVER be such a thing as a fast, capable,
efficient airplane that will be safe to travel in for the average low
time pilot with average training.

Michael

Colin W Kingsbury

February 14th 05, 05:27 AM

"Steve.T" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I must politely disagree. And this is very much off topic to this N/G.

Since when has that stopped anyone? ;)

> So when software development is controlled and driven by the marketing
> arm of a company, too often you get buggy code that has not been
> correctly documented. [I've worked under those conditions too.]
>

Well, you'll sooner have cats and dogs living together than marketing and
engineering getting along. I've lived on both sides of the aisle and as a
now general manager I can say unequivocally that software development
*should* be driven by marketing. If they are doing their job right, they
understand what will sell and that is the point.

Looking at this from a product management standpoint, it is all about how
much priority you assign to building quality versus building other aspects
of the product. There is no free lunch: quality costs time. It may pay
itself back over the long run but companies often live and die financially
in the short one, so choices must be made. I have worked at two companies
that over-engineered their products and died as a result.

The real failure here is that consumers have no good way to get a handle on
the quality of products they're considering buying. This is especially acute
with typical business systems that are not mass-marketed. There is no JD
Power/Consumer Reports survey for software like there are for new cars. So
even if a customer says, "I'm willing to pay 10% more for a 5% improvement
in quality," there's no way for them to find out who is in fact better.
Vendors therefore have little incentive to do better than anyone else. New
features on the other hand will logically be prioritized over quality
improvements in many cases because while no customer will pay 10% more for a
quality improvement that can't be measured, they will pay 15% more for a
catchy feature that is quite obvious. We can argue the details but the
purpose of a business is in the end to make a product customers are willing
to pay for. Traditionally quality has not been rewarded by the market.

As an economist, I see this as a classic market failure known as the
"prisoner's dilemma." Because of the lack of information (difficulty of
measuring relative quality objectively), the market fails to provide
higher-quality options even though customers clearly want them. This
coincidentally is the branch of game theory that won John Nash (the subject
of "A Beautiful Mind") his Nobel some years back.

-cwk.

Corky Scott

February 14th 05, 02:08 PM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:09:14 -0500, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>Viperdoc > wrote:
>
>> However, in severe conditions I would not want to trust my
>> life to the supposition that TKS makes me invincible.
>
>I cannot imagine there is any technology that makes a pilot "invincible."

Two or three years ago a professor here at the engineering school of
Dartmouth developed a deicing technique that he was claiming would
work on just about anything including tires, windshields, airplane
wings, or whatever.

It involved running a type of low voltage charge through the object.
The charge causes ice to outgas so that it cannot gain a purchase on
the object. It either slides off or is blown off.

I asked where this project was a year ago or so and was told that it
was now in the hands of private companies who are working on making it
a viable product.

Corky Scott

Peter R.

February 14th 05, 02:59 PM

Corky Scott > wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:09:14 -0500, "Peter R."
> > wrote:
>
>>Viperdoc > wrote:
>>
>>> However, in severe conditions I would not want to trust my
>>> life to the supposition that TKS makes me invincible.
>>
>>I cannot imagine there is any technology that makes a pilot "invincible."
>
> Two or three years ago a professor here at the engineering school of
> Dartmouth developed a deicing technique that he was claiming would
> work on just about anything including tires, windshields, airplane
> wings, or whatever.
>
> It involved running a type of low voltage charge through the object.
> The charge causes ice to outgas so that it cannot gain a purchase on
> the object. It either slides off or is blown off.
>
> I asked where this project was a year ago or so and was told that it
> was now in the hands of private companies who are working on making it
> a viable product.

Perhaps, but my point is that no matter how foolproof a product might be,
if it requires any pilot input it will have the potential to fail the
pilot. This is certainly true in GA, where cost and other reasons limit
the type of technology that makes it to market.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

C J Campbell

February 14th 05, 07:11 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >
> > > How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's?
> >
> > For the last few years, production figures have been about the same for
> both
> > birds.
>
> Are those statistics only counting recent production aircraft?
>
> --
> Matt

No. George is confusing two sets of statistics. Perhaps he thinks you are
replying to his earlier post which did compare only recent production
aircraft.

February 14th 05, 08:36 PM

In article . com>,
Steve.T > wrote:
>Jon:
>
>Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
>Cosmatology Board.

The state of Texas has such a legal title.

>
>There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
>position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
>because I also do software and have for years.
>
>I decided to let the bugs in the software argument go lest I be called
>a mainframe bigot.
>
>Later,
>Steve.T
>PP ASEL/Instrument
>

Jon Kraus

February 14th 05, 11:12 PM

Again... sorry I should have spelled it out.... PP-ASEL-IA in this case
means:
Private Pilot-Airplane Single Engine Land-Instrument Airplane

Inspector Aircraft as you put it is not the correct term.. Inspection
Authorization is what you should have asked.. So your post, to be
correct should have said:

Do you have Inspection Authorization? In which I would have responded -
No I do not. :-)

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Mooney 201 443H

Steve.T wrote:

> Are you an Inspector, Aircraft?
>

Jon Kraus

February 14th 05, 11:18 PM

> It's like calling someone as "combustible refuse engineer" when they
really are just a garbageman.

Or in your case a glorified carpenter? If you read the post I was
responding to you'd see I was joking about the "engineer" part...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Mooney 201 4443H

[email protected]

February 15th 05, 02:47 AM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:01 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .
>
>I have logged half an hour of 'copter time, and frankly they scare the
>pants off me.

Sorry to hear that. My first ride back in '83 was a total blast, and
it's why I started to take lessons back then. Unfortunately budget and
life got in the way, and it took me until 2001 to get the private pilot
ticket. I'm hoping to get my commercial rating in the next year or so
(although I've been saying that for a while now).

> (It was a sight to see, let me tell you.) My
>understanding is that:
>
>1. If you take your hand off the stick, you die.

Helicopters, unlike most fixed wing aircraft, are inherently unstable.
So yes, if you let the cyclic go in any light helicopter, you'll
probably get upside down in short order.

The key thing here is not to let go of the cyclic 8^) . It's not really
a problem, other than at engine start when you should kinda cradle the
cyclic between your knees as you crank the engine (at least in the small
helos I've flown). And, properly trimmed (assuming the helicopter you're
flying has pitch and roll electric trim), you could fly hands off for a
little while.
>
>2. If you within some (fairly large) envelope of unsafe combinations of
>altitude and airspeed and your engine fails, you die.

It's called the height-velocity diagram, and we are trained to stay out
of it as much as possible. Some operations, typically ones that only a
helicopter can do (and also not things that you'd do as a private pilot)
put the pilot into one of the hatched (bad) areas of the H-V diagram at
times. The idea is to minimize that time. I have about 130 hours in
fling-wingers and I probably have five minutes at most in the hatched
area (i.e. maximum performance liftoffs over the theoretical 50'
obstacle).
>
>3. If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
>seconds, you die, even if you were in the "safe" range of altitude and
>airspeed to begin with.

First of all, you will notice an engine failure pretty quickly. If it's
sudden (rather than a gradual loss of power), you're going to get a
large amount of yaw. Very noticeable, and correctable with appropriate
pedal input.

In terms of the number of seconds that you have to respond, it depends
on the model of helicopter. The Bell 47 is notorious for having gobs of
rotor inertia, meaning that entering autorotation can be a reasonably
relaxed procedure. On the other end of the spectrum, the Robinson R22
(especially with the older blade type) has a very light rotor system, so
you do have to be quick to get the collective down.

Generally speaking, helicopter pilots are more nervous 8^) but just
because the engine quits doesn't mean you're going to die - not by a
long shot. It pays to always have a landing spot picked out - not that
difficult if you maintain a sufficient AGL altitude and try not to fly
over unfavorable (mountainous/hilly/water) terrain more than necessary.
>
>Is that correct? A copter pilot friend of mine told me this years ago,
>but it occurred to me that he may have been exaggerating to make himself
>look studly. So I thought I'd do a little reality check here. Any
>'copter pilots here that can set me straight?

It seems to me that you're looking at helicopter flying with the "glass
half empty" attitude, rather than "half full". I am fixed-wing rated
too, and that's a lot of fun, but there is nothing better than being the
Master and Commander of a helicopter (other than certain adult sports of
course). A well trained, safety-conscious helicopter pilot will probably
live to a ripe old age when he can't see or think well enough to drive
the thing around anymore 8^) .

Part of life is about risk management. I am mighty afeart of dying, but
I'll do almost anything to get some helo stick time (even pay for it).
Frankly, I worry more about a mid-air collision in an airplane (I live
in a very busy airspace - San Jose, CA) than about dying in a helicopter
due to one of the things you mentioned.

Dave Blevins

Michael

February 15th 05, 09:17 PM

> As I see it, this very notion is contrary to the way that the general

> public looks at almost any activity. Driving a car is dangerous, too,
but
> we have not seen any simulators or recurrent training requirements to

> address this fact.

Nevertheless, the fatality rate goes down every year. It's not becuase
the drivers are getting better. They're not. It's not because they're
driving less or being more conservative or more restricted. They're
not. The cars are getting safer. In an atmosphere of wide access and
minimal regulation, it is economically feasible to improve safety
through technology.

All safety improvements ultimately come from improving the technology
rather than changing behavior. It is the engineer's efforts that are
important, not the bureaucrat's.

More regulation and limitation will only limit access, narrow the
market, make innovation less practical, and ultimately degrade rather
than improve safety.

Michael

Peter Duniho

February 15th 05, 10:10 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Nevertheless, the fatality rate goes down every year. It's not becuase
> the drivers are getting better. They're not. It's not because they're
> driving less or being more conservative or more restricted. They're
> not. The cars are getting safer. In an atmosphere of wide access and
> minimal regulation, it is economically feasible to improve safety
> through technology.

Well, don't forget that automobile safety is easier to improve through
"technology" because motor vehicles don't have the same design issues that
aircraft do.

Most of the safety improvements for motor vehicles comes from improved
handling and stopping, and stronger (but usually heavier) structure. None
of those solutions are applicable to aviation. Of course, motor vehicles
also enjoy a much lower velocity during an accident; if no aircraft ever
went faster than 60mph (even in a dive or after structural failure),
fatalities would be much lower.

I am not convinced that technology is likely to improve safety in aviation
as much as it has in motor vehicles, even if I do agree that
overly-stringent regulation stifles innovation (which I do). Not until
airplanes are basically just flying themselves, removing the human element
altogether.

Pete

Neil Gould

February 15th 05, 11:11 PM

Recently, Michael > posted:
> I wrote earlier:
>> As I see it, this very notion is contrary to the way that the general
>> public looks at almost any activity. Driving a car is dangerous,
>> too, but we have not seen any simulators or recurrent training
>> requirements to address this fact.
>
> Nevertheless, the fatality rate goes down every year. It's not
> becuase the drivers are getting better. They're not. It's not
> because they're driving less or being more conservative or more
> restricted. They're not. The cars are getting safer. In an
> atmosphere of wide access and minimal regulation, it is economically
> feasible to improve safety through technology.
>
> All safety improvements ultimately come from improving the technology
> rather than changing behavior. It is the engineer's efforts that are
> important, not the bureaucrat's.
>
I disagree that all safety improvements *must* ultimately come from
improving the technology. Behavioral change can also improve safety. Stop
such ridiculous practices as giving people the opportunity to have a dozen
DUI convictions, and safety will improve. Stop the ridiculous practice of
permitting ever more distractions while driving, such as cell phones, DVD
players, etc., and safety will improve. I am completely opposed to the
mentality that suggests that we can behave any way we want and count on
technology to save our asses.

> More regulation and limitation will only limit access, narrow the
> market, make innovation less practical, and ultimately degrade rather
> than improve safety.
>
I agree that more regulation will limit access; I don't see that as a Bad
Thing, and safety is likely to improve as a result. However, narrow
markets have not restricted innovation, nor have expanded markets
necessarily encouraged innovation. In fact, one could argue that the
opposite is often true, because narrow markets restrict access to
resources, making innovation a necessity. Space Ship One is a good example
of this. Safety factors are independent of market size, as far as I can
tell. The automotive market is one of the largest in the world, yet safety
improvements usually come as a result of legislation forcing those
improvements.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Gould

February 15th 05, 11:29 PM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:
>
> Most of the safety improvements for motor vehicles comes from improved
> handling and stopping, and stronger (but usually heavier) structure.
>
I disagree, here, Peter. In which vehicle would you rather be a passenger
in a high-speed accident, an SUV or an Indianapolis racer? As a long-time
sports car owner and driver, I can tell you that safer construction is not
dependent on weight. My first sports car, a 1959 Austin Healy Sprite,
weighed about 1,400 lbs. was wrecked when a Cadillac cut me off and hit me
on a 45º angle driver-side collision front-end when I was doing about 50
mph on a divided roadway. Yet, I suffered no injuries whatsoever. There is
no amount of money that would get me to try that in any typical sedan.

> None of those solutions are applicable to aviation. Of course, motor
> vehicles also enjoy a much lower velocity during an accident; if no
> aircraft ever went faster than 60mph (even in a dive or after
> structural failure), fatalities would be much lower.
>
I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect that
automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given that many
aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings result in no
serious injuries.

> I am not convinced that technology is likely to improve safety in
> aviation as much as it has in motor vehicles, even if I do agree that
> overly-stringent regulation stifles innovation (which I do). Not
> until airplanes are basically just flying themselves, removing the
> human element altogether.
>
We're looking at different overly-stringent regluations, here. On one
hand, innovative aircraft design and certification has been stifled by
regulation. Meanwhile, the human element, which may be the most critical
component to providing safety, is being *less* restricted by allowing more
people with less training to get involved in aviation. I think we've got
it backwards.

Regards,

Neil

Morgans

February 16th 05, 12:59 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
> fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect that
> automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given that many
> aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings result in no
> serious injuries.

I disagree, because of the type of accidents we are comparing.

Fatal car accidents usually are near head-on (close to 90 degree), or
another car hits the door, at near head-on in his direction of travel.
Airplanes that hit 90 degrees, or close to it are pretty much *always*
fatal, where sometimes (many times) car head-ons have people walking away
from it.

Once again, it comes down to the degree of impact. The pilot that flies it
into the ground while still in control, will hit the ground at a shallow
angle, and give it's occupants a chance of living. An auto impact at a
shallow impact angle will usually cause no injuries, and the car will need a
fender and bumper and some paint.

Cars just don't have to be light. They just build them strong. Few planes
are even tested for crush zones, like cars are. Cars win, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

February 16th 05, 01:16 AM

the 'hand test' isn't an accurate measure of temperature. When you get
up in the morning your carpet will be the same temp as the tile, but
the tile will 'feel' much colder. The tile takes more energy (than
carpet) to raise its temp which is energy sucked out of you. Since tile
sucks more out of you for any given temp change it will 'feel' colder.

-lance smith

Peter Duniho

February 16th 05, 01:38 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> [...] My first sports car, a 1959 Austin Healy Sprite,
> weighed about 1,400 lbs. was wrecked when a Cadillac cut me off and hit me
> on a 45º angle driver-side collision front-end when I was doing about 50
> mph on a divided roadway. Yet, I suffered no injuries whatsoever. There is
> no amount of money that would get me to try that in any typical sedan.

A single incident is not proof. I have met people who swear that it's safer
to not wear a seatbelt, because they know someone who was thrown clear of a
vehicle and suffered only minor injuries.

Beyong that, if you suffered no injuries in that accident at all, it was
just plain dumb luck. Nothing built in 1959 could be considered
"crashworthy" compared to modern designs. Not even race cars.

Weight is not a good predictor of safe construction. But for a given
design, a stronger structure requires more weight. You can disagree with
that all you like, but you'll be wrong the entire time.

> I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
> fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect that
> automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given that many
> aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings result in no
> serious injuries.

A gear-up landing isn't an accident, any more than scraping a pillar in a
parking garage is. In other words, if you want to count aviation accidents
like that, you need to count all the auto accidents like that as well.

If I'm going to crash into something at 60 mph or higher, I'd much rather do
it in a car than an airplane.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 16th 05, 01:42 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> I disagree that all safety improvements *must* ultimately come from
> improving the technology. Behavioral change can also improve safety. Stop
> such ridiculous practices as giving people the opportunity to have a dozen
> DUI convictions, and safety will improve. Stop the ridiculous practice of
> permitting ever more distractions while driving, such as cell phones, DVD
> players, etc., and safety will improve. I am completely opposed to the
> mentality that suggests that we can behave any way we want and count on
> technology to save our asses.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where that would work. But we
don't. I agree that vehicles (aircraft, motor, etc.) would all be MUCH
safer if people would pay attention to their piloting/driving.

But the average pilot or driver is just that. Average. They can't be
bothered, and would rather chat on their cell phone, reading the newspaper,
while tailgating the person in front of them (or whatever the aviation
equivalent is), and force the vehicle manufacturer to come up with a way to
keep them from getting killed while doing so.

When you figure out a way to get a better human, then we can start talking
about getting that better human to change their behavior. Until then,
you're stuck with the kind of behavior that the current human is willing to
engage in.

Pete

Neil Gould

February 16th 05, 02:34 AM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:
>
> Weight is not a good predictor of safe construction. But for a given
> design, a stronger structure requires more weight. You can disagree
> with that all you like, but you'll be wrong the entire time.
>
We actually *agree*, and have said the same thing in different ways: a
stronger structure is not necessarily a safer structure. The idea behind
sports & racing car chassis design is to transfer the energy of a crash
*away* from the occupant. Stronger structures transfer that energy *to*
the occupant, and current automotive design trends try to counteract this
problem by letting the occupants bounce of something soft. Cheap, but not
clever or necessarily safe.

>> I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
>> fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect
>> that automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given
>> that many aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings
>> result in no serious injuries.
>
> A gear-up landing isn't an accident, any more than scraping a pillar
> in a parking garage is.
>
A gear-up landing is not an accident, or not an *uncontrolled* accident?
Besides, it's more like scraping a guard rail on the freeway, no? It's
what happens next that counts.

> In other words, if you want to count
> aviation accidents like that, you need to count all the auto
> accidents like that as well.
>
I agree. No problem.

> If I'm going to crash into something at 60 mph or higher, I'd much
> rather do it in a car than an airplane.
>
Doesn't it depend which car and which airplane, or would you let me pick
them and you be the crash test dummy? ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Neil Gould

February 16th 05, 02:49 AM

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote
>
>> I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
>> fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect
>> that automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given
>> that many aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings
>> result in no serious injuries.
>
> I disagree, because of the type of accidents we are comparing.
>
> Fatal car accidents usually are near head-on (close to 90 degree), or
> another car hits the door, at near head-on in his direction of travel.
> Airplanes that hit 90 degrees, or close to it are pretty much *always*
> fatal, where sometimes (many times) car head-ons have people walking
> away from it.
>
At 60 mph? I haven't seen 60 mph car crash test information, but the 45
mph tests don't encourage me to bet on anything much faster than that
being "safe" in a typical sedan or SUV.

> Cars just don't have to be light. They just build them strong. Few
> planes are even tested for crush zones, like cars are. Cars win,
> IMHO.
>
As I said in response to Peter, stronger structures are not necessarily
safer structures. Some planes *are* tested for crush zones, and their
fuselage designs use similar principles to racing cars, where the energy
of the crash is dissipated by tossing off parts, the engine is deflected
down and under the cabin, etc. If we're talking about current technology
and design, then there isn't much point in using the old and/or bad
designs as a standard, IMO.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Gould

February 16th 05, 03:01 AM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> m...
>> I disagree that all safety improvements *must* ultimately come from
>> improving the technology. Behavioral change can also improve safety.
>> Stop such ridiculous practices as giving people the opportunity to
>> have a dozen DUI convictions, and safety will improve. Stop the
>> ridiculous practice of permitting ever more distractions while
>> driving, such as cell phones, DVD players, etc., and safety will
>> improve. I am completely opposed to the mentality that suggests that
>> we can behave any way we want and count on technology to save our
>> asses.
>
> It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where that would work.
> But we don't. I agree that vehicles (aircraft, motor, etc.) would
> all be MUCH safer if people would pay attention to their
> piloting/driving.
>
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

> When you figure out a way to get a better human, then we can start
> talking about getting that better human to change their behavior.
> Until then, you're stuck with the kind of behavior that the current
> human is willing to engage in.
>
Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

Regards,

Neil

Peter Duniho

February 16th 05, 07:30 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> A gear-up landing is not an accident, or not an *uncontrolled* accident?
> Besides, it's more like scraping a guard rail on the freeway, no? It's
> what happens next that counts.

Using the NTSB definition of "accident", it is not an accident. I'll accept
that it's more like scraping a guard rail (or similar roadside barrier) at
highway speeds. But again, automobiles don't fare any worse in those
situations, and in fact fare better (repairs cost a LOT less).

> [...]
> Doesn't it depend which car and which airplane, or would you let me pick
> them and you be the crash test dummy? ;-)

I would prefer to not do the comparison in your 1959 Sprite. However, the
oldest car I ever drove on a regular basis was a 1971 model, and I certainly
would put that car or any newer one ahead of any four-passenger
single-engine airplane (anything that might be considered a comparable
vehicle). That includes the Cirrus, which as I understand it has very good
crashworthiness, for an airplane.

I think it highly unlikely, in the automobile scenario, that I would suffer
fatal injuries. I think it highly LIKELY, in the aircraft scenario, that I
would suffer fatal injuries.

I don't plan on actually doing the experiment, since in one case I doubt I
would live, and in the other case, there's still the chance I'd die, and I'd
still be assured of some heavy-duty damage to my personal structure that
could take years or decades to recover fully from (assuming I ever recover
at all). Crashing while going 60 mph just isn't that nice an experience, no
matter what.

I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy than,
say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are limits, and
the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more structure. Much of
the clever engineering (as opposed to just beefing things up) still requires
more structure (adding beams to transfer crash forces around the cabin,
rather than through it, for example).

I just don't see how an airplane will ever be on par with respect to
crashworthiness with automobiles. Useful load is too important, and in too
short supply, and weight is too highly correlated with crashworthy
structures, even when adding material (weight) isn't the primary way the
structure has been made crashworthy.

Pete

Peter Duniho

February 16th 05, 07:40 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
> for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
> legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
> that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
> that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current standards would
be a good place to start, for that matter. But frankly, I believe that the
only reason that standards are so strict with airplanes is that people (the
general public) have ALWAYS been terrified of them. Since day one,
airplanes have been freaking people out.

If as many people flew airplanes as drive, there's no way the regulations
would be as strict as they are now. The general public wouldn't put up with
the inconvenience. Conversely, it's entirely possible that one reason
aviation has always been so small an industry is that it's just too many
hurdles for most people (the argument that the Sport certificate will expand
the pilot community is a demonstration of that thought).

> Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
> become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
> for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

There, I'm going to have to disagree. Or at least, you'll have to define
"lose that game" better. The human race gets where it gets because of the
sheer numbers and determination. I have a fairly low opinion of the average
human, but I have a pretty optimistic outlook on where society as a whole
will go. That's because the average human makes very little difference in
where society goes.

Our progress is slow, but there's enough average people to provide the
manpower, and who cares if a few tens of thousands get slaughtered on the
roads each year? Those aren't the important people for the most part
anyway. Yes, there's a bit of collateral damage; no matter how intelligent
you are, you can't protect against every eventuality. But again,
statistically speaking, a person who is applying some thought to their
driving (or flying) is light years ahead of the average person out there,
and will (on average) do way better.

We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason, the
smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only game I
see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the dumb people.
Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty close (and is
already doing so).

Pete

Neil Gould

February 16th 05, 11:23 AM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> m...
>> A gear-up landing is not an accident, or not an *uncontrolled*
>> accident? Besides, it's more like scraping a guard rail on the
>> freeway, no? It's what happens next that counts.
>
> Using the NTSB definition of "accident", it is not an accident.
>
Isn't that determined by how much the repairs cost, and isn't that a
factor of "what happens next"?

>> [...]
>> Doesn't it depend which car and which airplane, or would you let me
>> pick them and you be the crash test dummy? ;-)
>
> I would prefer to not do the comparison in your 1959 Sprite.
>
I don't know how familiar you might be with the design of that car, or of
similar cars of that era. I can personally attest to the fact that its
monocoque chassis did exactly what Austin Healy said it would do, and as a
result I'm here to talk about it. I don't think it was as much blind luck
as you seem to believe.

[...]
> I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy
> than, say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are
> limits, and the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more
> structure. Much of the clever engineering (as opposed to just
> beefing things up) still requires more structure (adding beams to
> transfer crash forces around the cabin, rather than through it, for
> example).
>
I vaguely recall seeing a program regarding the transfer of technology
from NASA, its subject matter was on using the crash test assembly
developed for space vehicles to test airframe design. The outcome was that
crash safety was able to be significantly improved by redesigning crush
characteristics and firewall installation. This kind of thing can be done
without adding significant weight or additional beams.

[...]
> I just don't see how an airplane will ever be on par with respect to
> crashworthiness with automobiles. Useful load is too important, and
> in too short supply, and weight is too highly correlated with
> crashworthy structures, even when adding material (weight) isn't the
> primary way the structure has been made crashworthy.
>
I'm not disagreeing with you about how crashworthy design is typically
approached. However, I'll once again rely on the example of the F1 & Indy
race cars which show that crashworthiness can be improved without
increasing the weight of the vehicle. I'm sure that this hasn't escaped
the notice of aircraft manufacturers. And, I certainly agree that it situ
testing is not something I'll personally pursue, so I'll rely on becoming
a "better human", instead. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Neil Gould

February 16th 05, 11:32 AM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How
>> about BFRs for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type
>> before one can legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm
>> not under any illusion that these practices could become a reality
>> in our society, but I'm sure that safety would improve dramatically
>> if they were.
>
> Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
> standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current
> standards would be a good place to start, for that matter. But
> frankly, I believe that the only reason that standards are so strict
> with airplanes is that people (the general public) have ALWAYS been
> terrified of them. Since day one, airplanes have been freaking
> people out.
>
The point is, whatever the rationale, I don't think that the stricter
standards both for design and operation of aircraft is a Bad Thing.

[...]
> We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason,
> the smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.
>
> So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only
> game I see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the
> dumb people. Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty
> close (and is already doing so).
>
IMO, that depends on whether you take a micro or macro view of the topic.
The "technology as savior" mindset has pretty far-reaching ramifications.
I appreciate the irony that I'm writing this on the day that the Kyoto
treaty goes into effect, and that the US and other major producers of
polutants aren't taking part in what even its supporters call an
inadequate first step to slow the destruction of our environment. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Friedrich Ostertag

February 16th 05, 07:39 PM

Hi Peter,

> I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy
> than, say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are
> limits, and the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more
> structure. Much of the clever engineering (as opposed to just
> beefing things up) still requires more structure (adding beams to
> transfer crash forces around the cabin, rather than through it, for
> example).

A lot of that additional structure weight used to improve
crashworthiness can be traded for money. Or to put it this way: If
you're prepared to pay the price, a LOT more crashworthiness can be
achieved without to much a weight penalty. Best example I can think of
is the formula one monocoque. It saved Schumacher's but going into a
pile of tires at > 200 km/h (125 mph). (Yet this has nothing to do with
normal sports cars! They are designed just the same way as a sedan or
SUV, I don't see any reason to believe they would show any better crash
behavior.)

In a car, the "cost" of 1 kg of weight is roughly 5$. If you can save 1
kg of weight while increasing the cost by not more than that, you do
it, all other things being equal. In an airplane, the value of 1 kg of
weight is up to 1000$.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress