will this fly?

[Lee Elson]

Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to
several groups.

I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
(people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies
but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also
aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional
activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these
restrictions.

I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
where someone has made a business meeting these types of
transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
who are the customers, what are the costs).

email replies preferred

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Lee Elson) said:
>I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
>that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
>effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
>where someone has made a business meeting these types of
>transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
>who are the customers, what are the costs).

5 will get you 10 that the FAA would consider what you are referring to as
"air taxi", and therefore Part 135.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It's fun to mock old people. They're going to die soon anyway.
-- Mike Sphar

[Ron Natalie]

"Lee Elson" > wrote in message om...

> I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
> that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
> effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
> where someone has made a business meeting these types of
> transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
> who are the customers, what are the costs).

There are such companies out there, but you have to be very careful
as you are walking a fine line with the 135-91 issues. Try reading
AC 120-12A first.

[David Megginson]

Lee Elson wrote:

> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.

I am not even American, much less an expert in the FARs, so I won't comment
on that part of your posting. On the business side, however, you need to be
careful. Do you really know much about the aviation business? How are the
existing businesses within 250 nm doing? What *are* the existing businesses
within 250 nm?

If I ever felt compelled to do something like open a restaurant or start an
aviation business, I'd force myself to spend at least three years working in
the industry first so that I could get at least a clue about how the
business works: wait tables, wash airplanes, or whatever. I'd also hire a
manager who hated restaurants or airplanes, so that I'd have someone who
could make impartial cost/benefit decisions without being blinded by the
glamour of the whole thing.

Once I'd done that, I would set aside a fixed amount of money (say, USD
400K), with the understanding that

a) I won't give up on the business until the money runs out; and
b) I won't put any more money into the business if the money does run out.

Obviously, you will need enough money to make it through at least a couple
of bad years. If you (or your investors) cannot afford to lose that money,
then don't start the business.


All the best,


David

[Colin Kingsbury]

Lee,

I'm a pilot/owner and heavy business traveler located in Boston, so I have
some perspective on this...

I think the concept of a small-plane fractional system a la NetJets could
have some potential in specific markets.

I travel >100k/mi year and over the past few years the airlines have really
trimmed back connections to secondary markets. If you're based in Albany and
have to visit a client in Bangor, then you're screwed. No way you can drive
out and back in one day, and even flying the airlines is tough because
you'll have to connect in Boston- better hope you can synch schedules well.

Now, with an SR-22, that becomes an easy one-day trip. This gets the
businessman back home, relaxed, not spending a night in some fleabag motel
in a dingy town (nothing against Bangor). It will however cost a lot more
than a car trip would. Also, the reason why there isn't better airline
service between Albany and Bangor is that there aren't that many people
doing it. That should sound a cautionary note.

Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you. Remember, the key
value you provide is time savings, so you darn well better not scrub too
many flights. So now you're in it for a FIKI bird, probably a decent-sized
twin so the pax don't get nervous. You like flying in small planes, but your
customers often won't. Now, a 421 would be great, but that's going to cost a
lot more per hour to run than the Cirrus, which means your "tickets" will be
more expensive, which means a lot fewer people will buy them. This is one
reason why these sorts of things aren't more prevalent. It's also why the
Safire/Eclipse/etc microjets are a potential "big deal." If they can offer
turbine reliability and mission flexibility at low operating cost, I am
absolutely certain you will see air taxi services sprouting up like
mushrooms on manure after a rainstorm. However, many aviation veterans far
more knowledgeable than I do not believe this is currently possible. I have
no skin in the game so I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude.

Come to think of it, the ideal plane for this would probably be something
like a Caravan, which will have good operating flexibility but lower costs,
especially insurance and maintenance, and fewer mechanical failures. Of
course, if you're in the Rockies this might not work, you might need a
pressurized plane.

All BS aside, the real issue here is, which is more solid, your dream or
your business? I'll bet somebody could build a business like this and make
it work. But they'll be doing most of their flying wearing green eyeshades
sitting behind a desk. If you want to fly, and nothing else, get a flying
job. They're out there and you will find one eventually, and you'll get to
do a lot more flying. If you want to build a business, OTOH, my advice
(following what an earlier poster said) would be to find your model (like
NetJets) and go work for them and learn everything you can, then rip it off.

Best,
-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

Lots of good advice but I would say that if you have better not scrub any
flights (or almost none). When people are paying a huge premium to save
time they expect to get to their desinatin on time. It is a chicken and egg
problem: The only people who will pay need to get to the destination on
time every time. The only people who can be flexible on schedule won't pay
a premium.

Mike
MU-2


"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Lee,
>
> I'm a pilot/owner and heavy business traveler located in Boston, so I have
> some perspective on this...
>
> I think the concept of a small-plane fractional system a la NetJets could
> have some potential in specific markets.
>
> I travel >100k/mi year and over the past few years the airlines have
really
> trimmed back connections to secondary markets. If you're based in Albany
and
> have to visit a client in Bangor, then you're screwed. No way you can
drive
> out and back in one day, and even flying the airlines is tough because
> you'll have to connect in Boston- better hope you can synch schedules
well.
>
> Now, with an SR-22, that becomes an easy one-day trip. This gets the
> businessman back home, relaxed, not spending a night in some fleabag motel
> in a dingy town (nothing against Bangor). It will however cost a lot more
> than a car trip would. Also, the reason why there isn't better airline
> service between Albany and Bangor is that there aren't that many people
> doing it. That should sound a cautionary note.
>
> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you. Remember, the key
> value you provide is time savings, so you darn well better not scrub too
> many flights. So now you're in it for a FIKI bird, probably a decent-sized
> twin so the pax don't get nervous. You like flying in small planes, but
your
> customers often won't. Now, a 421 would be great, but that's going to cost
a
> lot more per hour to run than the Cirrus, which means your "tickets" will
be
> more expensive, which means a lot fewer people will buy them. This is one
> reason why these sorts of things aren't more prevalent. It's also why the
> Safire/Eclipse/etc microjets are a potential "big deal." If they can offer
> turbine reliability and mission flexibility at low operating cost, I am
> absolutely certain you will see air taxi services sprouting up like
> mushrooms on manure after a rainstorm. However, many aviation veterans far
> more knowledgeable than I do not believe this is currently possible. I
have
> no skin in the game so I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude.
>
> Come to think of it, the ideal plane for this would probably be something
> like a Caravan, which will have good operating flexibility but lower
costs,
> especially insurance and maintenance, and fewer mechanical failures. Of
> course, if you're in the Rockies this might not work, you might need a
> pressurized plane.
>
> All BS aside, the real issue here is, which is more solid, your dream or
> your business? I'll bet somebody could build a business like this and make
> it work. But they'll be doing most of their flying wearing green eyeshades
> sitting behind a desk. If you want to fly, and nothing else, get a flying
> job. They're out there and you will find one eventually, and you'll get to
> do a lot more flying. If you want to build a business, OTOH, my advice
> (following what an earlier poster said) would be to find your model (like
> NetJets) and go work for them and learn everything you can, then rip it
off.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Kevin]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Lots of good advice but I would say that if you have better not scrub any
> flights (or almost none). When people are paying a huge premium to save
> time they expect to get to their desinatin on time. It is a chicken and egg
> problem: The only people who will pay need to get to the destination on
> time every time. The only people who can be flexible on schedule won't pay
> a premium.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> This is how these guys get into trouble when they have to be somewhere come hell or high water.
Last night near Newnan GA. 2 charter pilots were killed in a King Air
200 when they
tried to slip beneath the overcast to land.They got too low started
clipping trees and crashed. The conditions at the time were 100
ft.overcast with 1/4 mile vis.

[[email protected]]

On 5-Dec-2003, (Lee Elson) wrote:

> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
> In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
> 600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
> employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
> business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
> ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
> the FAR's.


Sounds like what you are suggesting is a sort of on-demand professional
pilot service where the client owns the aircraft (or fraction thereof) and
brings in the pilot from the service you envision to fly it. Thus the plane
can be operated under part 91 as a privately owned aircraft. The advantage
to the company is that, rather than maintaining a staff of pilots on payroll
they just pay for pilot services as required, kind of like getting office
workers from a temp agency. Obviously, the pilots would have to have
commercial tickets and any required type-ratings

Legally, I don't see why this can't work. No different really than hiring
an instructor to teach you in your own airplane. From a practical business
standpoint? Who knows?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[ET]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:

>
> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.

My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, ET > said:
>"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:
>> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
>> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.
>
>My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from
>micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
>I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
>this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing
conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially
since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean
any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you
have pireps of no icing.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

[Matthew S. Whiting]

ET wrote:
> "Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
> :
>
>
>>Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
>>because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.
>
>
> My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from
> micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
> I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
> this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
>

Yes. Even an anti-icing equipped light airplane is still a light
airplane and has neither the power nor the altitude capability to
withstand the ice that exists in much of the northern latitudes during
the winter.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
> mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
> if you have pireps of no icing.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is.

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur. If our best prediction methods say "there's likely to
be ice in clouds between 5000 and 12000", just because you fly into a
cloud at 8000 and don't pick up any ice doesn't mean the predicion is
any less valid.

Half an hour later, it could be half a degree colder and that could be
the difference between ice and no ice. Five minutes later, that exact
location could be in a downdraft instead of an updraft, and that could
be the difference. Maybe the conditions are such that your airspeed, or
the shape of your leading edge makes the difference. Maybe the guy
before you just took off and has warm skin while you're descending with
a cold-soaked airframe.

Let's say I told you "The flight plan shows 2.5 hours in the air and
you've got 2.6 hours of fuel on board". Would you think it safe to
attempt the flight? I assume you wouldn't. Now, if I told you some guy
just made the same flight in the same type aircraft with the same amount
of fuel when he started and got there just fine. You now have an
empirical observation that 2.6 hours of fuel is indeed sufficient.
Would this change your mind about whether it was safe to launch or not?

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
> micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
> I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
> this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply no
match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful for
buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the all-weather
capabilities of airliners.

Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of their
depth.

The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with respect
to icing.

Pete

[Dan Thompson]

The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
> from
> > micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
> > I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
> > this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
>
> Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply
no
> match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful
for
> buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
> descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
all-weather
> capabilities of airliners.
>
> Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of their
> depth.
>
> The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
> doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
respect
> to icing.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

The NTSB considers pilot reports to be "anectdotal" and relies solely on
government sources. The case law on this comes from a guy in upstate NY who
relied on pilot reports of no icing, took off into what they consider known
icing conditions, and....after a decent period...crashed.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, ET > said:
> >"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
> :
> >> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> >> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.
> >
> >My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
> >micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
> >I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
> >this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
>
> The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing
> conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially
> since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean
> any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you
> have pireps of no icing.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

[John R. Copeland]

Once(!) is right.
Will your insurance company buy you a replacement SR-22 after you pop =
that chute?
Especially if you had to use it because of ice?
---JRC---

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message =
gy.com...
> The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) =
pop the
> chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be =
comforting
> when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known =
ice that
> the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found =
it is
> was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights =
that
> would keep me on the ground otherwise.
>=20
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ET" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution =
out
> > from
> > > micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
> certain
> > > I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an =
SR-22 with
> > > this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
> >
> > Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are =
simply
> no
> > match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is =
useful
> for
> > buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions =
(climb,
> > descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
> all-weather
> > capabilities of airliners.
> >
> > Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of =
their
> > depth.
> >
> > The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. =
It
> > doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
> respect
> > to icing.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>=20
>

[Dan Thompson]

Yes, in that they would pay the agreed value for the plane if it were, as I
assume it would be, totalled. But I wouldn't expect to be covered by them
or anyone else in a replacement.
"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
Once(!) is right.
Will your insurance company buy you a replacement SR-22 after you pop that
chute?
Especially if you had to use it because of ice?
---JRC---

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
> chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
> when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
> the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it
is
> was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
> would keep me on the ground otherwise.
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ET" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
> > from
> > > micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
> certain
> > > I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22
with
> > > this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
> >
> > Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply
> no
> > match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful
> for
> > buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
> > descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
> all-weather
> > capabilities of airliners.
> >
> > Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of
their
> > depth.
> >
> > The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
> > doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
> respect
> > to icing.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up.
<<

This is what scares me about Cirrus pilots.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
>>mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
>>if you have pireps of no icing.
>
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is.
>
> We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
> going to occur. If our best prediction methods say "there's likely to
> be ice in clouds between 5000 and 12000", just because you fly into a
> cloud at 8000 and don't pick up any ice doesn't mean the predicion is
> any less valid.

I think it is a bad thing. We don't know enough to know where it is
likely to occur as you say. This means that forecasting it is virtually
impossible, but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
> chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
> when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that
> the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is
> was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
> would keep me on the ground otherwise.

Not me. I really doubt that the BRS chute has been tested in icing
conditions. I don't want to be the test pilot for it. I suspect a
parachute could pick up a LOT of ice in a hurry given its surface area.
You might come down a lot faster than you think.


Matt

[Dan Thompson]

What would be the effect of a thin layer of ice on a parachute canopy?
There are no aerodynamics other than pure drag. This does not even consider
that the trip down is going to be pretty quick anyway. Also the constant
flexing of the canopy is going to shed any layers that amounted to anything,
just like deicing boots. I'll wave to you on my way down!

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> > The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
> > chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be
comforting
> > when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
> > the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found
it is
> > was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> > options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
> > would keep me on the ground otherwise.
>
> Not me. I really doubt that the BRS chute has been tested in icing
> conditions. I don't want to be the test pilot for it. I suspect a
> parachute could pick up a LOT of ice in a hurry given its surface area.
> You might come down a lot faster than you think.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Colin Kingsbury]

Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the
lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates are
so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over the
mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to kill
yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent.

-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
> chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
> when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
> the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it
is
> was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
> would keep me on the ground otherwise.

[Dan Thompson]

How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to accidentally
flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an
instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your
statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that
there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there would
be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data
points.


"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the
> lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates
are
> so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over
the
> mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to
kill
> yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent.
>
> -cwk.
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
> the
> > chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be
comforting
> > when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
> that
> > the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found
it
> is
> > was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
> > options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
> > would keep me on the ground otherwise.
>
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> What would be the effect of a thin layer of ice on a parachute canopy?
> There are no aerodynamics other than pure drag. This does not even consider
> that the trip down is going to be pretty quick anyway. Also the constant
> flexing of the canopy is going to shed any layers that amounted to anything,
> just like deicing boots. I'll wave to you on my way down!

I don't know that there would be any aerodynamic impact, I was thinking
more of weight. I've never seen a round canopy up close and personal.
Are you sure they flex all that much? I can around the periphery where
the cords attach and the air is spilling out, but I suspect that the
middle half or more of the canopy is pretty rigid once filled with air
and stable.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

Roy Smith wrote:
> > We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
> > going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
> We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

> but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
> anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

> This greatly
> reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
> many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
> much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > > We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
> > > going to occur.
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
> > We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.
>
> That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
> word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
> enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
> forecast where it is *certain* to happen.
>
> > but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
> > anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.
>
> Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
> issues icing forecasts.
>
> > This greatly
> > reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
> > many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
> > much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.
>
> Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
> flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
> icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
> any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.
>
> The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
> long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
> won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
> see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
> what happens.
>

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

On the issue of icing forecasts, my experience (mostly western US), is that
there is almost always ice when it is forecast.. I can not think of a
single flight where icing was forecast and there was no icing. It may not
be forming every second at every altitude but if you fly 100nm in cloud and
icing is forecast then you will find ice. There are also a lot a senarios
where you will find icing below -20C in the West so the whole notion of
"climbing above the ice is a falicy around here (unless you have a jet).
I'm sure that there are places where it is possible to climb above the ice
in a prop driven airplane on a consistant basis but not around here.

Mike
MU-2

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>>We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
>>>going to occur.
>>
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>
>>We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.
>
>
> That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
> word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
> enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
> forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

Which makes it even more ludicrous to prevent a pilot taking a look.



>>but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
>>anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.
>
>
> Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
> issues icing forecasts.

I believe it is the FAA, in the form of the FSS, that promulgates the
forecasts though and thus endorses them, de facto at the very least.



>>This greatly
>>reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
>>many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
>>much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.
>
>
> Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
> flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
> icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
> any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

Physics prevents flying in ice, but the law prevents going out and
having a look in a area with icing forecasts, right? At least I believe
that is what you were saying. You've conveniently clipped out your
original text so I can't easily see what you wrote. Physics doesn't
prevent taking a look see.


> The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
> long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
> won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
> see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
> what happens.

Flying a single engine airplane at all requires taking chances. I flew
a lot of IFR flights in the northeast and have encountered ice several
times. Only one of which was of any significant concern. Icing is like
thunderstorms. You have to respect it and avoid it, but you don't stop
flying because of an imperfect forecast.


> Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
> line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
> there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
> gravity, I think that's the right way to be.

I disagree. All flying involves risks. Flying in the northeast
involves the risk of an ice encounter. My experience is that at least 9
times out of 10, the ice never materializes. And the times I have
encountered ice, it was easy to find an exit. Only once, downwind of
Lake Erie at night, did I have a really nasty encounter ... and this
wasn't forecast! I picked up better than an inch of ice on my Skylane
in less than 5 minutes. Took full throttle to maintain 110 MPH and I
had to make a slow descent to 9,000 (entered the ice at 11,000) in order
to maintain altitude at that airspeed. Fortunately, the ice accretion
stopped at 9,000 and I carried most of that ice all the way home to ELM.
Made quite a racket as some it came off on the approach (it was 40 on
the ground).

I'm not suggesting that anyone force a pilot to fly when ice is a
possibility, but I also think it unwise to prevent a pilot from taking a
look when conditions are appropriate. Obviously, I'm not talking about
taking off in freezing rain or something insane like that. I'm talking
the normal rime ice conditions that prevail in much of the northeast for
much of the winter.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
>>>>going to occur.
>>>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>>
>>>We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.
>>
>>That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
>>word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
>>enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
>>forecast where it is *certain* to happen.
>>
>>
>>>but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
>>>anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.
>>
>>Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
>>issues icing forecasts.
>>
>>
>>>This greatly
>>>reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
>>>many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
>>>much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.
>>
>>Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
>>flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
>>icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
>>any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.
>>
>>The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
>>long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
>>won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
>>see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
>>what happens.
>>
>
>
> I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
> and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
> ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Roy Smith
> writes:

>This greatly
>> reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
>> many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
>> much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.
>

The part that bothers me, if I understand this disucssion, is the problem of
legally filing(and opening) an IFR flight plan in my Archer when there is
forcast icing. I generally file IFR when I am flying "out of my home area".
Sure does help with the TFRs and hot MOAs the pop up. In the winter I can
still avoid flying in the clouds or do so briefly thru thin layers to fly in
VMC. It is my choice to fly safely in the winter and filing IFR improves my
safety when away from my familiar home area. I will continue to do so and
don't understand the blanket ruling.

Chuck

Chuck

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to
evaluate
> > and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
> > ground.
>
> Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
> to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
> etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
> flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
> departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
> than worrying about icing.
>
>
> Matt
>
OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

[Colin Kingsbury]

Dan,

The causal connection is that the perceived safety of the 'chute causes
people to attempt flights they otherwise wouldn't. Or, as you wrote, "I
think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me on
the ground otherwise."

It's true that the Cirrus fleet is small, and I'll agree it's too soon to
make sound statistical statements. My opinion is thus just that. I counted
14 accidents in the NTSB database from 1999-2003, with one being a factory
test pilot. It could just be a case of clustering, but it's certainly not
good. Reading the reports, I had a "what the @#$! was he thinking" reaction
to at least half of them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "If anything goes wrong
I'll just pull that lever" is what at least some of them were thinking. The
irony here is that a "safer" airplane may in the short run turn out to be
more accident-prone precisely because the perceived safety is higher than
the actual safety.

I certainly hope the accident rates in the Cirrus regress to the mean,
because I want to see innovation and lower costs and higher capabilities and
balh blah blah. Ultimately it all comes down to pilots to take their flying
more seriously. While the airlines have a harder time with each passing year
of finding new ways to break airplanes, we in GA seem quite happy sticking
to old-fashioned but still-effective methods.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
m...
> How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to
accidentally
> flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an
> instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your
> statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that
> there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there
would
> be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data
> points.
>
>
> "Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message

[Dan Thompson]

Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the statistics
are insufficient to support it.

I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better be
safe and not buckle up."



"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Dan,
>
> The causal connection is that the perceived safety of the 'chute causes
> people to attempt flights they otherwise wouldn't. Or, as you wrote, "I
> think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me
on
> the ground otherwise."
>
> It's true that the Cirrus fleet is small, and I'll agree it's too soon to
> make sound statistical statements. My opinion is thus just that. I counted
> 14 accidents in the NTSB database from 1999-2003, with one being a factory
> test pilot. It could just be a case of clustering, but it's certainly not
> good. Reading the reports, I had a "what the @#$! was he thinking"
reaction
> to at least half of them.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "If anything goes wrong
> I'll just pull that lever" is what at least some of them were thinking.
The
> irony here is that a "safer" airplane may in the short run turn out to be
> more accident-prone precisely because the perceived safety is higher than
> the actual safety.
>
> I certainly hope the accident rates in the Cirrus regress to the mean,
> because I want to see innovation and lower costs and higher capabilities
and
> balh blah blah. Ultimately it all comes down to pilots to take their
flying
> more seriously. While the airlines have a harder time with each passing
year
> of finding new ways to break airplanes, we in GA seem quite happy sticking
> to old-fashioned but still-effective methods.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> m...
> > How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to
> accidentally
> > flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an
> > instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your
> > statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard
that
> > there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there
> would
> > be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data
> > points.
> >
> >
> > "Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>
>

[Mick Ruthven]

Your own statemant, " I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of
flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise" provides evidence of
just what Colin is saying, which is not at all what you're trying to put
into his mouth.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
explain
> how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
> airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
only
> crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
it
> comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
>
> So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
> are insufficient to support it.
>
> I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
> plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
> belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
> then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
be
> safe and not buckle up."

[Colin Kingsbury]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
> CFIT is about the only
> crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,

Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1


> since by definition it
> comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

Well, why does CFIT happen, anyway? Generally speaking it's because of
pilots flying into conditions they shouldn't, whether that's visual flight
into IMC or a rated pilot getting disoriented in tougher conditions than
he's prepared to handle. The one thing they all have in common was a comfort
factor that things would turn out all right.

Traditionally in GA, once you were up in the air your only choice was to
bring that airplane back to earth safely, or die. There is no middle ground!
This is in my mind the single most essential fact of aviation. CAPS changes
that by offering, in some cases, an escape route once available only to the
military and a very few others.

This will increase people's comfort factors, period. Don't tell me it
doesn't, because if it didn't Cirrus wouldn't offer a feature that adds
plenty of cost but doesn't make the plane fly any faster. It adds comfort
because it adds real safety, but in a very specific way. CFIT and
disorientation on approach in weather kill lots of pilots every year, and
it's not likely CAPS will help in all but a few of thse situations. But it
will make people feel more comfortable, in some cases creating comfort when
it is not appropriate.

> So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
> are insufficient to support it.

If you think that having a parachute will not make some people think they're
safer than they are, then what we have is a disagreement on how good
peoples' decision-making skills are. I think logic and statistics are on my
side there.

My econometrics professor was fond of saying, "If you torture the data long
enough, they will eventually confess to anything." Statistics is a useful
tool but will not provide the answer to every question.

> I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
> plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
> belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
> then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
be
> safe and not buckle up."

Your seatbelt breaks; you have to drive the car 50 miles to get it fixed. I
bet you will drive more carefully than normal, even if you are normally a
very careful driver. Does this mean you are an unsafe driver normally? It
means simply that you are human.

Wearing seatbelts makes sense because there are many accidents that are not
caused by our own actions. Even the safest drivers get rearended by yahoos
and sideswiped by road-ragers. Likewise, engines fail in IMC at night, wings
fall off, and pilots have heart attacks. There are plenty of reasons to want
a parachute on your airplane, and I look forward to the day that I will have
one. But don't tell me it doesn't create a false sense of security!

Best,
-cwk.

[ET]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, ET > said:
>>"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:
>>> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an
>>> SR-22 because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.
>>
>>My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
>>from micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so
>>I'm certain I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would
>>an SR-22 with this system still be as limited as your statement
>>suggests??
>
> The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known
> icing conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested.
> Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
> mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
> if you have pireps of no icing.
>
>

Thanks (to you and the others that replied),... as I said, I'm very much
an aviation newbie.... that makes sense.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Colin Kingsbury" > said:
>"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
>> CFIT is about the only
>> crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,
>
>Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1

Since that is NOT a CFIT accident, I don't see how it could change his
mind.

Here's a little hint for you: An inadvertent "right, flat spin" is not
"Controlled".

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a
battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
- Calvin discovers Usenet

[Colin Kingsbury]

Duh! But a flat spin entered at 5000 AGL is a perfect scenario for popping
the cork, and yet it didn't happen. Whatever the reason it should give
anyone pause.

This all started with talk about icing- now if you ice a plane up real bad,
there's a chance of stalling and spinning or some other weird failure like
tailplane stalling leading to a really weird loss of control. Now if the
'chute didn't save these guys from spinning the plane in from a mile up on a
sunny day, what's to say it should do any better when you're sweating lead
in the clouds?

-cwk.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Colin Kingsbury" > said:
> >"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
> >> CFIT is about the only
> >> crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,
> >
> >Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1
>
> Since that is NOT a CFIT accident, I don't see how it could change his
> mind.
>
> Here's a little hint for you: An inadvertent "right, flat spin" is not
> "Controlled".

[Kevin]

Colin Kingsbury wrote:
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
>
>>CFIT is about the only
>>crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,
>
>
> Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1
>
>
>
>>since by definition it
>>comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
>>possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
>
>
> Well, why does CFIT happen, anyway? Generally speaking it's because of
> pilots flying into conditions they shouldn't, whether that's visual flight
> into IMC or a rated pilot getting disoriented in tougher conditions than
> he's prepared to handle. The one thing they all have in common was a comfort
> factor that things would turn out all right.
>
> Traditionally in GA, once you were up in the air your only choice was to
> bring that airplane back to earth safely, or die. There is no middle ground!
> This is in my mind the single most essential fact of aviation. CAPS changes
> that by offering, in some cases, an escape route once available only to the
> military and a very few others.
>
> This will increase people's comfort factors, period. Don't tell me it
> doesn't, because if it didn't Cirrus wouldn't offer a feature that adds
> plenty of cost but doesn't make the plane fly any faster. It adds comfort
> because it adds real safety, but in a very specific way. CFIT and
> disorientation on approach in weather kill lots of pilots every year, and
> it's not likely CAPS will help in all but a few of thse situations. But it
> will make people feel more comfortable, in some cases creating comfort when
> it is not appropriate.
>
>
>>So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
>
> statistics
>
>>are insufficient to support it.
>
>
> If you think that having a parachute will not make some people think they're
> safer than they are, then what we have is a disagreement on how good
> peoples' decision-making skills are. I think logic and statistics are on my
> side there.
>
> My econometrics professor was fond of saying, "If you torture the data long
> enough, they will eventually confess to anything." Statistics is a useful
> tool but will not provide the answer to every question.
>
>
>>I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
>>plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
>>belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
>>then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
>
> be
>
>>safe and not buckle up."
>
>
> Your seatbelt breaks; you have to drive the car 50 miles to get it fixed. I
> bet you will drive more carefully than normal, even if you are normally a
> very careful driver. Does this mean you are an unsafe driver normally? It
> means simply that you are human.
>
> Wearing seatbelts makes sense because there are many accidents that are not
> caused by our own actions. Even the safest drivers get rearended by yahoos
> and sideswiped by road-ragers. Likewise, engines fail in IMC at night, wings
> fall off, and pilots have heart attacks. There are plenty of reasons to want
> a parachute on your airplane, and I look forward to the day that I will have
> one. But don't tell me it doesn't create a false sense of security!
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>
You would probally be better off wearing a ram-air type parachute. Then
if you had a fire or other failure you would not have to ride the plane
down. The Cirrus system would not do much good if the plane was on fire.

[Dan Thompson]

OK, Mick, then do you agree with Colin that having a chute makes a pilot
less safe? And more likely to have a CFIT accident? That's what Colin
said. We are not talking about what I said, although some of you keep
pointing to it as if it were proof of something.

And, by the way, all I said is that TKS and the chute would allow me to make
a lot of flights I would otherwise pass up. In my non-deiced plane. Duh.

"Mick Ruthven" > wrote in message
. com...
> Your own statemant, " I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of
> flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise" provides evidence of
> just what Colin is saying, which is not at all what you're trying to put
> into his mouth.
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
> explain
> > how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
> > airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
> only
> > crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
> it
> > comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> > possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
> >
> > So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
> statistics
> > are insufficient to support it.
> >
> > I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on
your
> > plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear
seat
> > belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more
safe,
> > then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
> be
> > safe and not buckle up."
>
>

[Dan Thompson]

Fire or no fire, your choices are the same. Obviously if the terrain is
good for an off-airport landing, you are going to land it normally and the
chute would not be considered at all. So we assume the terrain is hostile
in this scenario. You can land with forward speed of close to stall, i.e.,
6o knots, or land with almost 0 forward speed. The former gets you on the
ground and to a chance to get out of the burning plane faster, but you have
the same hostile terrain risks you would have were you not on fire. The
latter exposes you to the fire a little longer, assuming you get the chute
out at close to minimum effective altitude. It gets down to how bad is the
fire vs. how bad is the terrain.







"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:pX4Bb.61314$_M.294118@attbi_s54...
> Colin Kingsbury wrote:
> > "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
> >
> >>CFIT is about the only
> >>crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,
> >
> >
> > Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1
> >
> >
> >
> >>since by definition it
> >>comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> >>possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
> >
> >
> > Well, why does CFIT happen, anyway? Generally speaking it's because of
> > pilots flying into conditions they shouldn't, whether that's visual
flight
> > into IMC or a rated pilot getting disoriented in tougher conditions than
> > he's prepared to handle. The one thing they all have in common was a
comfort
> > factor that things would turn out all right.
> >
> > Traditionally in GA, once you were up in the air your only choice was to
> > bring that airplane back to earth safely, or die. There is no middle
ground!
> > This is in my mind the single most essential fact of aviation. CAPS
changes
> > that by offering, in some cases, an escape route once available only to
the
> > military and a very few others.
> >
> > This will increase people's comfort factors, period. Don't tell me it
> > doesn't, because if it didn't Cirrus wouldn't offer a feature that adds
> > plenty of cost but doesn't make the plane fly any faster. It adds
comfort
> > because it adds real safety, but in a very specific way. CFIT and
> > disorientation on approach in weather kill lots of pilots every year,
and
> > it's not likely CAPS will help in all but a few of thse situations. But
it
> > will make people feel more comfortable, in some cases creating comfort
when
> > it is not appropriate.
> >
> >
> >>So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
> >
> > statistics
> >
> >>are insufficient to support it.
> >
> >
> > If you think that having a parachute will not make some people think
they're
> > safer than they are, then what we have is a disagreement on how good
> > peoples' decision-making skills are. I think logic and statistics are on
my
> > side there.
> >
> > My econometrics professor was fond of saying, "If you torture the data
long
> > enough, they will eventually confess to anything." Statistics is a
useful
> > tool but will not provide the answer to every question.
> >
> >
> >>I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on
your
> >>plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear
seat
> >>belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more
safe,
> >>then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
> >
> > be
> >
> >>safe and not buckle up."
> >
> >
> > Your seatbelt breaks; you have to drive the car 50 miles to get it
fixed. I
> > bet you will drive more carefully than normal, even if you are normally
a
> > very careful driver. Does this mean you are an unsafe driver normally?
It
> > means simply that you are human.
> >
> > Wearing seatbelts makes sense because there are many accidents that are
not
> > caused by our own actions. Even the safest drivers get rearended by
yahoos
> > and sideswiped by road-ragers. Likewise, engines fail in IMC at night,
wings
> > fall off, and pilots have heart attacks. There are plenty of reasons to
want
> > a parachute on your airplane, and I look forward to the day that I will
have
> > one. But don't tell me it doesn't create a false sense of security!
> >
> > Best,
> > -cwk.
> >
> >
> You would probally be better off wearing a ram-air type parachute. Then
> if you had a fire or other failure you would not have to ride the plane
> down. The Cirrus system would not do much good if the plane was on fire.
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to
>>
> evaluate
>
>>>and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
>>>ground.
>>
>>Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
>>to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
>>etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
>>flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
>>departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
>>than worrying about icing.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't explain
> how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
> airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the only
> crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition it
> comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
>
> So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the statistics
> are insufficient to support it.
>
> I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
> plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
> belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
> then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better be
> safe and not buckle up."

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>
> >>>I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to
> >>
> > evaluate
> >
> >>>and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
> >>>ground.
> >>
> >>Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
> >>to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
> >>etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
> >>flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
> >>departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
> >>than worrying about icing.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >
> > OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
> time..

And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't know. That is why I have an airplane in the first place!

Mike
MU-2

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the
same
> > time..
>
> And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.
<<

For data of a related sort, look at how many pilots rely on GPS, and take
flights they wouldn't otherwise (because of lack of preparation). (put another
way, with GPS some people are more inclined to just get up and go, but without
they will do more planning)

GPS has given pilots a more cavalier attitude towards flight planning and
pilotage (see the planning thread), I would be VERY surprised if it did not
turn out that the chute gave pilots a more cavalier attitude towards weather
and other conditions, while at the same time admitting to the ranks people who
shouldn't even =be= pilots.

One thing to remember, coming down on a TKS chute is a VERY UNDESIRABLE
OUTCOME. I don't think people fully comprehend this.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dan Thompson]

"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners
than I do.



"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> > Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
explain
> > how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
> > airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
only
> > crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
it
> > comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
> > possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
> >
> > So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
> > are insufficient to support it.
> >
> > I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on
your
> > plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear
seat
> > belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more
safe,
> > then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
be
> > safe and not buckle up."
>
> I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
> more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
> likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
> might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
> not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
> piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Colin Kingsbury]

Dan, et. al,

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
in states that don't have helmet laws*.

You may hang around with the best pilots in the country; what of it? Every
year we have tens if not hundreds of fuel starvation accidents, which are
nearly 100% preventable with even a pinch of common sense. My contention is
that you should always assume the worst when it comes to human nature.

On an individual level, there is no question that a pilot with a Cirrus has
the potential to enjoy safer flying than one in a 172. However, I think
logic well supports my position that the perceived safety will tempt some
pilots into situations they don't belong in, possibly resulting in higher
accident rates. Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.

* I haven't researched this issue carefully enough to say this is totally
conclusive, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
.com...
> "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
> provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
owners
> than I do.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
> more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
> likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
> might help.

Sounds a lot like the French argument during WWI to the effect that allowing
pilots to wear parachutes would cause them to be more cowardly.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Gig Giacona]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Sounds a lot like the French argument during WWI to the effect that
allowing
> pilots to wear parachutes would cause them to be more cowardly.
>

That's silly! The French couldn't be more cowardly.

[Michael]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote
> "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
> provided.

That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty
good one for most people.

When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for
having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate
for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped.
It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS
installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.

Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and
this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example,
your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS
reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and
risk reduction being provided.

The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing
conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not
mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the
level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system
is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much
different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are
KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably
estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS
(even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no
ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here.

If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed
and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to
believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful.

First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's
enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will
there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the
risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and
the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it
still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as
well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag
lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon
opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or
even mathematically modeled.

If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has
ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the
slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for
accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they
are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and
will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will
already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it.
Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane
will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent
rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross
condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers
(which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot
ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute
deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in
this case.

Michael

[David Brooks]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Sounds a lot like the French argument during WWI to the effect that
> allowing
> > pilots to wear parachutes would cause them to be more cowardly.
> >
>
> That's silly! The French couldn't be more cowardly.

Oh, give it up already. You're talking of the nation of, just in our own
endeavor, Bleriot and St Expury and his colleagues. The nation that lost
more men fighting the German machine to a standstill in WWI, than the US has
lost in all wars combined. The nation of the Resistance (whose bravery
easily exceeded that of the rebels in 1776). The home nation of Medecins
sans frontieres. And that's just free-associating, no googling, and only
20th century.

What is it with this France-bashing? Do you need someone to feel superior
to, because you can't feel superior on your own?

-- David Brooks

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Teacherjh wrote:
> I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
> more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
> likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
> might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
> not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
> piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.
> <<
>
> For data of a related sort, look at how many pilots rely on GPS, and take
> flights they wouldn't otherwise (because of lack of preparation). (put another
> way, with GPS some people are more inclined to just get up and go, but without
> they will do more planning)
>
> GPS has given pilots a more cavalier attitude towards flight planning and
> pilotage (see the planning thread), I would be VERY surprised if it did not
> turn out that the chute gave pilots a more cavalier attitude towards weather
> and other conditions, while at the same time admitting to the ranks people who
> shouldn't even =be= pilots.
>
> One thing to remember, coming down on a TKS chute is a VERY UNDESIRABLE
> OUTCOME. I don't think people fully comprehend this.

Yes, with my back condition it could be fatal. However, it is still
probably more desirable than coming down without it!

I'm not against the chutes at all, but I am against letting their
presence change the behavior of the pilot.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
> provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners
> than I do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact. The
insurance companies found this out with antilock brakes. They initially
gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss
rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that
the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor
weather as they thought the ABS would save them.

Now, I tend to think the average pilot is a cut above the average
driver, but we're all still human and all too often do crazy things.
Just look at the most significant causes of accidents: fuel exhaustion,
flight into IMC for VFR pilots, buzzing, etc. Almost all are due to
poor judgement and, yes, simple stupidity in many cases. If all pilots
were as intelligent as you claim, then accidents in these categories
would be near zero, and mechanical failure would be the predominant
cause of accidents. Just isn't so my friend.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Colin Kingsbury wrote:
> Dan, et. al,
>
> Here's an interesting link:
> http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html
>
> It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
> mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
> in states that don't have helmet laws*.

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


Matt

[Dan Thompson]

OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be
better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
their moronic passengers who flew with them.

You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
I tip my hat to you.



"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote
> > "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> > "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> > balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> > taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> > enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
being
> > provided.
>
> That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty
> good one for most people.
>
> When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for
> having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate
> for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped.
> It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS
> installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
> causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.
>
> Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and
> this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example,
> your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS
> reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and
> risk reduction being provided.
>
> The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing
> conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not
> mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the
> level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system
> is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much
> different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are
> KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably
> estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS
> (even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no
> ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here.
>
> If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed
> and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to
> believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful.
>
> First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's
> enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will
> there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the
> risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and
> the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it
> still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as
> well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag
> lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon
> opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or
> even mathematically modeled.
>
> If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has
> ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the
> slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for
> accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they
> are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and
> will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will
> already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it.
> Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane
> will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent
> rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross
> condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers
> (which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot
> ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute
> deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in
> this case.
>
> Michael

[Robert Henry]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>

> ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
> causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.

While the rest of the post was extremely well constructed, and strikingly
similar to some thoughts I had on the issue (I had images of the ice laden
tangled chute having a terminal velocity exceeding that of the aircraft that
had the effect of pulling the plane tail first into the ground), I have to
point out one nuance of difference on the point quoted.

My experience with ABS is that most people are neither TRAINED properly, nor
do they take the time to understand how it works, to use ABS correctly (when
needed and when not). The situation concerning insurance discounts is not a
function of more aggressive driving, imho. I would further argue that this
is currently the issue facing the chute on the Cirrus - there is no way
(AFAIK) to train on the proper use of the system, both in terms of function
and in the decisionmaking process, that fully demonstrates the experience of
what will occur leading up to deployment and through the outcome to its
inevitable conclusion.

Just as it takes a considerably different mindset for a panicked driver with
ABS to be prepared to steer around an obstruction during an event that
requires maximum braking, and actually do it, it takes a considerably
different mindset for a pilot to abdicate control of the aircraft when all
of the training is oriented toward maintaining and recovering control of the
aircraft. That mindset is a function of training, and until there is a
simulator that can emulate the experience and provide that training, I think
there will be accidents like the one in NY in which the question cannot be
conclusively answered about whether or not the pilot activated the CAPS
system. Of course, it would be nice if the design of the activation system
were able to provide an indication that deployment was attempted.

That said, I will ONLY buy vehicles with ABS, and I really like the Cirrus.

Bob

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> They initially
> gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss
> rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that
> the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor
> weather as they thought the ABS would save them.

I still contend the root cause here is the misinformation created from a
lack of proper training. In addition, the ABS may have been able to effect a
different outcome, even despite the reckless behavior, if the driver
actually knew how to use it. To me, drivers treat ABS like airbags: 'I know
I have it, but I don't need to know how to use it because it functions on
its own for my safety.'

As such, perhaps we should conclude that it's not the ABS or the parachute,
it's the a priori behavior that creates the situation in the first place
(including proper training in addition to good, up-to-the-moment ADM) that
deserves the attention.

[Dashi]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Thompson wrote:
> > "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> > "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> > balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> > taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> > enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
being
> > provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
owners
> > than I do.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.

If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
documents then?

Dashi

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dan Thompson wrote:
> OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
> They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
> airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be
> better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
> their moronic passengers who flew with them.
>
> You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
> I tip my hat to you.

Have you always had this problem with reading comprehension? We said
none of the above ... OK, maybe implied that some car drivers aren't
real bright. Then again, that is hardly a revelation to anyone who has
driven recently.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Henry wrote:
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
>>ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
>>causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.
>
>
> While the rest of the post was extremely well constructed, and strikingly
> similar to some thoughts I had on the issue (I had images of the ice laden
> tangled chute having a terminal velocity exceeding that of the aircraft that
> had the effect of pulling the plane tail first into the ground), I have to
> point out one nuance of difference on the point quoted.
>
> My experience with ABS is that most people are neither TRAINED properly, nor
> do they take the time to understand how it works, to use ABS correctly (when
> needed and when not). The situation concerning insurance discounts is not a
> function of more aggressive driving, imho. I would further argue that this
> is currently the issue facing the chute on the Cirrus - there is no way
> (AFAIK) to train on the proper use of the system, both in terms of function
> and in the decisionmaking process, that fully demonstrates the experience of
> what will occur leading up to deployment and through the outcome to its
> inevitable conclusion.

Most drivers aren't trained properly period!


> Just as it takes a considerably different mindset for a panicked driver with
> ABS to be prepared to steer around an obstruction during an event that
> requires maximum braking, and actually do it, it takes a considerably
> different mindset for a pilot to abdicate control of the aircraft when all
> of the training is oriented toward maintaining and recovering control of the
> aircraft. That mindset is a function of training, and until there is a
> simulator that can emulate the experience and provide that training, I think
> there will be accidents like the one in NY in which the question cannot be
> conclusively answered about whether or not the pilot activated the CAPS
> system. Of course, it would be nice if the design of the activation system
> were able to provide an indication that deployment was attempted.

Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
around obstacles whether you have ABS or not. The only difference with
ABS is that you don't need to think about modulating the brakes in
addition to thinking about steering.


> That said, I will ONLY buy vehicles with ABS, and I really like the Cirrus.

I'd rather have a non ABS vehicle, but they are very hard to find. I
still have both and much prefer my non ABS vehicle, especially in the
snow. I can stop much faster without ABS. On dry pavement, you can
also stop faster if you are proficient at threshold braking. However,
very few people are so I don't doubt that the average driver will stop
faster in an ABS equipped car. Threshold braking takes a lot more skill
than mashing the peddle with all your might! The proficient driver will
stop about as fast on dry pavement and faster on loose surfaces such as
sand and snow. The only advantage I can think of for ABS that can't be
duplicated by driver skill is having one side of the car on pavement and
the other on ice. ABS can modulate the brakes individually on each
wheel. No driver can do that.

On soft surfaces, locked wheels allow you to stop faster, but at the
loss of steering control. However, if all I need to do is stop, then
I'd much rather have the option to lock the wheels. If I need to steer
I can threshold brake and modulate the brakes myself. My only real
close call in the winter was with my new ABS equipped minivan. Didn't
have the option to steer around as the windrows of plowed snow blocked
the berm, and I couldn't lock the wheels to stop faster. I've driven in
the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
my non ABS vehicle. Luckily, I was going slow enough to stop anyway,
but the ABS raised my blood pressure considerably! It felt as though I
had no brakes at all. With locked wheels, as the snow piles up in front
of the tires, the braking force continually increases.

I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
had the opportunity to fly one yet though...


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Henry wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan Thompson wrote:
>> They initially
>>gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss
>>rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that
>>the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor
>>weather as they thought the ABS would save them.
>
>
> I still contend the root cause here is the misinformation created from a
> lack of proper training. In addition, the ABS may have been able to effect a
> different outcome, even despite the reckless behavior, if the driver
> actually knew how to use it. To me, drivers treat ABS like airbags: 'I know
> I have it, but I don't need to know how to use it because it functions on
> its own for my safety.'

That may well be the case. However, it still supports the point that
often additional safety equipment doesn't have the desired effect for a
variety of reasons that can't always be anticipatd.


> As such, perhaps we should conclude that it's not the ABS or the parachute,
> it's the a priori behavior that creates the situation in the first place
> (including proper training in addition to good, up-to-the-moment ADM) that
> deserves the attention.

I think that was the basis of the argument. I don't think anyone said
that the parachute wouldn't work as advertised, the argument was that
the behavior of the pilot might increase the chances of needing the
chute or of getting into situations where it can't help.

I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing
the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dashi wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
>>>"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
>>>balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
>>>taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
>>>enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
>>
> being
>
>>>provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
>>
> owners
>
>>>than I do.
>>
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.
>
>
> If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
> documents then?

These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
it out yourself.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=anti-lock-brake.htm&url=http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/1996/pr121096.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html

This one addresses a theory for the cause. As with all theories, there
are those who question it, but it seems to be pretty well supported by
the evidence.

http://www.drivers.com/article/164/


Matt

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most drivers aren't trained properly period!

Absolutely true. Back before the summer, I had the opportunity to "drive
IFR" through the Cumberland Gap. Road signs were only readable from within
30-50 feet. I was really wishing for a localiser for the lanes and off
ramps. ;) Cars streamed by me at 70-75. I maintained 50 just to keep from
being rear ended. The very next weekend was Memorial Day Weekend; the
weather persisted, and 100 vehicles were wrecked up there and the road was
closed for 24 hours.

>
> Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
> around obstacles whether you have ABS or not.

Simply because steering is impossible if the tires are locked up. The
studies also show most human beings are unable to modulate the brakes
effectively overall. What I think happens is that in no-ABS cars, the
reaction times and stopping distances are enough to overcome the need to
steer - which doesn't matter, because it's nearly impossible unless stopping
distance is sacrificed by the release of brake pressure. Then and only then
is steering possible. In ABS vehicles, the car will always sacrfice distance
for controllability. I submit that if the driver hasn't figured that out,
the mindset is not correct for the equipment.

> I've driven in
> the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
> my non ABS vehicle.

Going back to my original point, you have much training in using non-ABS
equipped vehicles. My training was in both, and I prefer the ABS - maybe it
was easier to learn, or I didn't have to untrain all the non-ABS experience.
I have been in similar situations in both kinds of cars and I can tell you
the outcome was always better in the ABS equipped vehicle - just luck,
maybe..., but no exaggeration. Of course, I don't change my driving style
based upon the braking equipment either.

> I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
> had the opportunity to fly one yet though...

I have about 5 hours in an SR-22. All my training was in Cessnas. It was no
transition despite sidestick, low-wing, and high performance. It came
together like bread and butter. Highly recommended. And I didn't change my
flying style based upon the chute or anything else in the airplane. Well, I
didn't have to have anything like a chart or a checklist on my lap for the
entire flight -but they were close at hand. ;)

Bob

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> I think that was the basis of the argument. I don't think anyone said
> that the parachute wouldn't work as advertised, the argument was that
> the behavior of the pilot might increase the chances of needing the
> chute or of getting into situations where it can't help.

Yes, the assertion is also on the table that the chute might not work in
icing conditions, and that it might not have worked in the NY accident. To
your point, we'll also never really know if in addition to stalls they
decided to attempt, or inadvertently entered, a spin.

>
> I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing
> the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight.

Agreed.

Bob

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html
>

Most interesting, to me. It supports my contention about controllability,
and states that stopping distance is actually better in all situations
except gravel (which is a rather uncommon road surface). It is plausible to
infer that the ABS vehicles were driven more recklessly based upon the
rollover and off-road accident statistics, but proving/disproving this
remains the issue.

[Teacherjh]

>>
I'm not against the chutes at all, but I am against letting their
presence change the behavior of the pilot.
<<

Considering the cause of most crashes, would you trade the chute for more gas?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dashi]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dashi wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Dan Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >>>"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
> >>>"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
> >>>balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
> >>>taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
> >>>enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
> >>
> > being
> >
> >>>provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
> >>
> > owners
> >
> >>>than I do.
> >>
> >>Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.
> >
> >
> > If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
> > documents then?
>
> These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
> speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
> show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
> it out yourself.

Thanks for the info, I do know how to use a search engine but you are one of
the few people that I have seen post a statement such as: "this is a
documented fact" and be able to back it up.

Congratulations,

Dashi

[Montblack]

("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
> > http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

> Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
> this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
> always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
> extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
> entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
> intuitive to be sure.

I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage

[Michael]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote
> OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.

Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
- she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.

> As dumb as car drivers and bikers.

I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.

> They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
> airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?

I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
for.

Michael

[Michael]

"Robert Henry" > wrote
> My experience with ABS is that most people are neither TRAINED properly, nor
> do they take the time to understand how it works, to use ABS correctly (when
> needed and when not). The situation concerning insurance discounts is not a
> function of more aggressive driving, imho.

You may well be right. However, it's a distinction without a
difference. The effect is the same - the safety advantage fails to
materialize because of the human element, even though there's nothing
wrong with the technology.

> I would further argue that this
> is currently the issue facing the chute on the Cirrus - there is no way
> (AFAIK) to train on the proper use of the system, both in terms of function
> and in the decisionmaking process, that fully demonstrates the experience of
> what will occur leading up to deployment and through the outcome to its
> inevitable conclusion.

Right. And therefore it doesn't really matter whether the cause is
being more agressive or just not understanding the system - either
way, the safety gain will fail to materialize.

Something very similar occurs in privately owned twins. The
transition training available is generally grossly inadequate. You
don't want to know how little multiengine experience the average
practicing multiengine instructor actually has. Decent simulators are
generally not available. As a result, the safety advantage of the
second engine generally fails to materialize.

In fact, all the safety advantages - ABS, chute, second engine - are
real. However, they are LIMITED. There are things they WILL do for
you, there are things they WON'T do for you, and they are never free -
they all have downsides.

Michael

[McGregor]

Well, someone else with this idea just folded.

http://www.morrowaircraft.com/




"Lee Elson" > wrote in message
om...
> Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to
> several groups.
>
> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
> In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
> 600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
> employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
> business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
> ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
> the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies
> but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also
> aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional
> activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these
> restrictions.
>
> I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
> that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
> effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
> where someone has made a business meeting these types of
> transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
> who are the customers, what are the costs).
>
> email replies preferred
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing?

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, ET > said:
> >"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
> :
> >> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> >> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.
> >
> >My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
> >micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
> >I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
> >this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??
>
> The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing
> conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially
> since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean
> any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you
> have pireps of no icing.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" > said:
>Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing?

I don't think so, yet. See
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=99

"For the 2003 model year, Cirrus is offering an optional TKS anti-icing
system for the SR22. The "weeping wing" system--that will deice the wings,
horizontal stabilizer and propeller--will not be certified for known icing,
but will be designed to allow pilots to escape from icing conditions. The
fluid reservoir will hold about an hour's worth of protection in order to
preclude pilots from thinking they can use the system to fly in ice. A
known-icing system with a larger reservoir will be a follow-on
development. The TKS system is priced at $19,700."



--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Documentation: Cryptic, lacking, erroneous. Pick any three.
-- Arvid

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:11:16 GMT, "McGregor"
> wrote:

>Well, someone else with this idea just folded.
>
>http://www.morrowaircraft.com/

Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

Rob

[Peter Duniho]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> >Well, someone else with this idea just folded.
> >
> >http://www.morrowaircraft.com/
>
> Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

From AvWeb's AvFlash:

AIR TAXI COMPANY SHUTS DOWN...
Financial problems have grounded SkyTaxi Inc, an Oregon start-up that
received national exposure for its hybrid air service. SkyTaxi, whose
business blended elements of regular airline service and charter
service, vacated its maintenance hangar at the Salem airport and laid
off employees last month.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/172-full.html#186236

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Montblack"
> writes:

>I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
>the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
>coverage
>

First, I'm an engineer talking law <G>. I have heard that a law like "must
wear helmet" is useful when you are involved in an accident with someone not
wearing a helmet. That is, the lack of helmet is contributing to the injuries.
The city may have the law and not enforce it (or very lightly) but it still
makes the non helmet rider contributory. I heard that some years ago, NYC had
a law against wearing the 4 inch spike heas shoes. They didn't arrest women
(or men) wearing the shoes but it protected the city when the wearer got caught
in a sidewalk grateing and was hurt.

Chuck

[Dan Thompson]

I've never used a parachute. My uncle and father are USAF Korea vets, and
had them onboard always, and my uncle had to eject out of his F86 once. I
found in his Dad's papers (my grandfather's) the letter my uncle wrote to
him describing this event, Uncle being about 20 at the time: "I was up
about 10 minutes and had to bail out because the flight leader saw smoke and
I had a forward fire warning light on. I ejected at about 14,000 and lost
my helmet. For some reason my foot hung up in the seat but I kicked that
away with no trouble. [describes a small cut he got in his head from a
chute buckle] I'll bet I looked wild when I walked into Wilson Creek (a
very small town) with my chute all over my shoulder and my collar soaked in
blood." I just happen to have this letter at hand now to quote from, it
having surfaced recently.

Your dismissal of the safety benefits of a Cirrus chute just does not fit
with my perception. The first save by such a chute came about just a few
miles from where I live, near Denton Texas. The concept in my view is
brilliant. If I ever buy a single again, it will have one. I had an engine
failure in the last single I owned. I stand by my statement that it might
save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus that will be making an
off-airport landing soon.

I know you'll find something arrogant to say about this, so take your last
shot.



"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote
> > OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.
>
> Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
> quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
> a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
> Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
> point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
> his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
> - she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
> to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.
>
> > As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
>
> I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
> than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.
>
> > They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
> > airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?
>
> I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
> descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
> descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
> chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
> parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
> for.
>
> Michael

[Teacherjh]

>>
I stand by my statement that it might
save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus
<<

and I retain the opinion that there would be fewer iced up cirri if there were
no chute.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Henry wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html
>>
>
>
> Most interesting, to me. It supports my contention about controllability,
> and states that stopping distance is actually better in all situations
> except gravel (which is a rather uncommon road surface). It is plausible to
> infer that the ABS vehicles were driven more recklessly based upon the
> rollover and off-road accident statistics, but proving/disproving this
> remains the issue.
>
>

Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year
here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Teacherjh wrote:
> I'm not against the chutes at all, but I am against letting their
> presence change the behavior of the pilot.
> <<
>
> Considering the cause of most crashes, would you trade the chute for more gas?


Only if I was running out of gas at the time! I've always tried (thus
far successfully) to never get into that situation. However, it is very
common for our fellow pilots to do exactly that.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dashi wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dashi wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
>>>>>"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
>>>>>balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
>>>>>taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
>>>>>enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
>>>>
>>>being
>>>
>>>
>>>>>provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
>>>>
>>>owners
>>>
>>>
>>>>>than I do.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
>>>documents then?
>>
>>These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
>>speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
>>show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
>>it out yourself.
>
>
> Thanks for the info, I do know how to use a search engine but you are one of
> the few people that I have seen post a statement such as: "this is a
> documented fact" and be able to back it up.

Well, I'm not perfect either, but I try not to write or say things that
I can't back up. Sometimes though the memory isn't completely accurate
and I make a statement only to later find that I can't back it up. I
hate it when that happens... :-)


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
>
>>>http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html
>>
>
>>Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
>>this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
>>always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
>>extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
>>entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
>>intuitive to be sure.
>
>
> I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
> the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
> coverage
>
>

As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Montblack wrote:
> > ("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
> >
> >>>http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html
> >>
> >
> >>Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
> >>this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
> >>always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
> >>extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
> >>entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
> >>intuitive to be sure.
> >
> >
> > I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't
make
> > the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of
insurance
> > coverage
> >
> >
>
> As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
> overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
> drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
> down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
> provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Considering the cause of most crashes,
> would you trade the chute for more gas?

Only if I was running out of gas at the time! I've always tried (thus
far successfully) to never get into that situation. However, it is very
common for our fellow pilots to do exactly that.
<<

Well, if you expected to run out of gas, you wouldn't. Ditto the chute.

OF course, only the other pilots run out of gas. But only the other pilots
lose control of the airplane or get iced up.

So, if you ever had an unexpected need for one of these (unspecified) things,
which would you prefer. A chute on the airplane, or six more gallons of gas?

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Andrew Rowley]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:

>Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
>this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
>always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
>extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
>entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
>intuitive to be sure.

I think the issue of safety features increasing risk is mainly when
they are new or unusual and people factor them into their behaviour.
If they are something you don't even think about I am sure they
increase safety.
An example would be stall warning systems. By this argument, they
should make flying more dangerous because people are more likely to
fly close to the stall. If there were only a few aircraft with stall
warning systems that would probably be true. However because everyone
takes them for granted and wouldn't normally think of them until they
go off, I 'm sure they do enhance safety.
Australia has had compulsory helmet (and seatbelt) laws for a long
time, and I don't think they decrease safety because Australian riders
take them for granted and so are unlikely to modify their behaviour
because they are wearing one.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
> as a direct result of government action.

Yes. I assume he really meant everyone who buys health insurance, but
most of them are also taxpayers. We all pay when anyone with insurance
uses it.


Matt

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Henry wrote:

> Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year
> here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow.

Well, actually, I have quite the opposite - which is not an argument - just
an experience relayed. I learned to drive in New England. Tangentially,
I've always wanted a bumper sticker that read "Graduate: Boston School of
Driving" I think fewer people would tailgate me...when I cut them off. <just
kidding>

I rear-ended someone once (not even any scratches) on a road covered newly
by snow over a span of about 10 minutes. The white snow was heated by the
warm engines at the intersection in the minutes before I got there. I almost
fell when I got out of the car because the white glaze was extremely slick.
It was extremely thin white ice (like glaze), not black. Moreover, I
couldn't stop and I couldn't steer. If I had ABS, the outcome might have
been different, and it could have been worse as I steered around the car and
went right through the intersection into crossing traffic. I'll never know,
but I do know I couldn't steer and braking was of little effect. I can
actually remember looking at the speedometer going back and forth from 12-15
to 0, 10 to 0.... I was already in first gear in the automatic for
conditions.

Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the road
and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged on
the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.

On another occasion, I was entering an intersection during a downpour. The
intersection was wide and unfamiliar. The two stop signs were four lanes
apart; there are two dedicated turning lanes, one for each right and left
and two through lanes. I was in the left through lane. As I realized there
were cars entering from stops into the crossing intersection, I looked and
found the stop signs for me well out of the visibility restricted peripheral
vision. It was daylight and the pedestrian crossing lines added the
rainwater obscuring the stop line. Honestly, in hindsight, I was driving too
fast for conditions. As I slammed the brakes, I estimated the stopping
distance would put me well into and maybe through the intersection. It
occurred to me also that if I made a right turn into the intersection, I
would have the possibility that vehicles crossing from the left would steer
left of me if I stayed as far right as possible in the breakdown/parking
lane as I turned right onto the crossing street. This also increased the
stopping distance available before the intersection. The car stopped about
30 feet from the corner of the intersection after making the right turn.
Without ABS, I am sure that I would have skidded straight through the
intersection and t-boned the police car (no exaggeration) turning left.
Most likely because of conditions, the police officer didn't come back
around and issue a ticket for failure to stop.

FWIW.

[Montblack]

("Robert Henry" wrote)
<snip>
> Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the
road
> and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
> traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged
on
> the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
> into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
> lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
> stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
> just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.


We drill this into the heads of our high school age nieces: ALWAYS HIT THE
DEER!!!

Hit the deer at the slowest speed possible, sure ...but don't go nuts trying
to avoid contact. Hell, I've had the nieces out practicing hitting deer.
Look! A (real) semi is in the oncoming lane and a (real) huge pickup is
behind you, there's an (imaginary) deer wandering out on the 2 lane road,
and you're doing 50 mph. What do you do?...right now!

Our Answer: Slow down - "thud", watching carefully your rearview mirror AND
for that semi to cross into your lane ...trying to avoid hitting the second
damn deer that just darted out on the other side of the road.

We tell them hitting the deer is about 4th on the list of what's important -
right now. Who's behind you, who's in front of you, and how's your car
moving down the road are all that matter for the next 10 seconds. Drive the
car!! (Hmm. Sounds familiar, like I've heard that somewhere before)

To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit the deer.

BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer in over
25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more points.
<g>

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Enrique]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Robert Henry" wrote)
> To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit the
deer.
>
> BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer in
over
> 25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more
points.
> <g>

Do you also run over dogs, pregnant women and kids?

Should someone run over you if you are in the road on a motorcycle or on
foot? Why not, in the big scheme of things your life is not worth more than
a deer's life?





> Montblack
> http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
>
>

[Margy Natalie]

I think the point is hit the deer rather than swerve into oncoming traffic.
Sorry but I'll hit the deer over the semi in the other lane or even the
teenager with the **** box in the other lane. I hit a cat once. I could
either hit a row of parked cars, head into oncoming traffic or hit the cat. I
still feel bad about it and it was 23 years ago, but I made the correct choice.

Margy

Enrique wrote:

> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ("Robert Henry" wrote)
> > To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit the
> deer.
> >
> > BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer in
> over
> > 25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more
> points.
> > <g>
>
> Do you also run over dogs, pregnant women and kids?
>
> Should someone run over you if you are in the road on a motorcycle or on
> foot? Why not, in the big scheme of things your life is not worth more than
> a deer's life?
>
> > Montblack
> > http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
> >
> >

[Frank]

"Enrique" > wrote in
:

>
> "Montblack" > wrote in
> message ...
>> ("Robert Henry" wrote)
>> To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit
>> the
> deer.
>>
>> BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer
>> in
> over
>> 25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more
> points.
>> <g>
>
> Do you also run over dogs, pregnant women and kids?
>
> Should someone run over you if you are in the road on a motorcycle or
> on foot? Why not, in the big scheme of things your life is not worth
> more than a deer's life?
>
>
>
>
>
>> Montblack
>> http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
>>
>>
>
>
>

If it that or kill someone else YES.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Henry wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Robert Henry wrote:
>
>
>>Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year
>>here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow.
>
>
> Well, actually, I have quite the opposite - which is not an argument - just
> an experience relayed. I learned to drive in New England. Tangentially,
> I've always wanted a bumper sticker that read "Graduate: Boston School of
> Driving" I think fewer people would tailgate me...when I cut them off. <just
> kidding>
>
> I rear-ended someone once (not even any scratches) on a road covered newly
> by snow over a span of about 10 minutes. The white snow was heated by the
> warm engines at the intersection in the minutes before I got there. I almost
> fell when I got out of the car because the white glaze was extremely slick.
> It was extremely thin white ice (like glaze), not black. Moreover, I
> couldn't stop and I couldn't steer. If I had ABS, the outcome might have
> been different, and it could have been worse as I steered around the car and
> went right through the intersection into crossing traffic. I'll never know,
> but I do know I couldn't steer and braking was of little effect. I can
> actually remember looking at the speedometer going back and forth from 12-15
> to 0, 10 to 0.... I was already in first gear in the automatic for
> conditions.

I was thinking mainly of snow with some depth to it. Sounds like you
are talking about snow that has been packed hard by traffic. That is
really more like ice at that point. I don't make any claim that regular
brakes are better on ice than ABS. Neither is worth a hoot unless you
have chains or studded tires. Trust me, with ABS on ice or hard packed
snow, you'll not have any braking either and likely won't be able to
steer on top of that.



> Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the road
> and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
> traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged on
> the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
> into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
> lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
> stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
> just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.

Why do you know that? ABS doesn't make you steer any better, unless
you've locked your brakes. I agree that average to poor drivers will do
better with ABS. Very good drivers will often not do much better and
and can do worse with ABS, especially on dry pavement (threshold braking
is better than the fast skid-release-skid-release of ABS) and soft
surfaces such as sand, gravel and deep snow.


> On another occasion, I was entering an intersection during a downpour. The
> intersection was wide and unfamiliar. The two stop signs were four lanes
> apart; there are two dedicated turning lanes, one for each right and left
> and two through lanes. I was in the left through lane. As I realized there
> were cars entering from stops into the crossing intersection, I looked and
> found the stop signs for me well out of the visibility restricted peripheral
> vision. It was daylight and the pedestrian crossing lines added the
> rainwater obscuring the stop line. Honestly, in hindsight, I was driving too
> fast for conditions. As I slammed the brakes, I estimated the stopping
> distance would put me well into and maybe through the intersection. It
> occurred to me also that if I made a right turn into the intersection, I
> would have the possibility that vehicles crossing from the left would steer
> left of me if I stayed as far right as possible in the breakdown/parking
> lane as I turned right onto the crossing street. This also increased the
> stopping distance available before the intersection. The car stopped about
> 30 feet from the corner of the intersection after making the right turn.
> Without ABS, I am sure that I would have skidded straight through the
> intersection and t-boned the police car (no exaggeration) turning left.
> Most likely because of conditions, the police officer didn't come back
> around and issue a ticket for failure to stop.

Yes, this is a condition where ABS can be valuable. However, good
braking technique without ABS is about equally good. I ride motorcycles
and subscribe to several motomags. In their tests of both ABS and
non-ABS bikes, the non-ABS bikes have thus far always achieved shorter
stopping distances with a skilled rider aboard.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Robert Henry" wrote)
> <snip>
>
>>Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the
>
> road
>
>>and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
>>traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged
>
> on
>
>>the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
>>into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
>>lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
>>stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
>>just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.
>
>
>
> We drill this into the heads of our high school age nieces: ALWAYS HIT THE
> DEER!!!
>
> Hit the deer at the slowest speed possible, sure ...but don't go nuts trying
> to avoid contact. Hell, I've had the nieces out practicing hitting deer.
> Look! A (real) semi is in the oncoming lane and a (real) huge pickup is
> behind you, there's an (imaginary) deer wandering out on the 2 lane road,
> and you're doing 50 mph. What do you do?...right now!
>
> Our Answer: Slow down - "thud", watching carefully your rearview mirror AND
> for that semi to cross into your lane ...trying to avoid hitting the second
> damn deer that just darted out on the other side of the road.
>
> We tell them hitting the deer is about 4th on the list of what's important -
> right now. Who's behind you, who's in front of you, and how's your car
> moving down the road are all that matter for the next 10 seconds. Drive the
> car!! (Hmm. Sounds familiar, like I've heard that somewhere before)
>
> To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit the deer.

Yes, hitting the deer is better than hitting a car, tree, etc. But if
the opposing lane is clear, it is better to try to steer around the
deer. What this says is that, just like in aviation, situational
awareness is key. You must always know what is beside and behind you,
not just what is in front. You should be able to pretty much instantly
make a decision as to what to do when a deer jumps out. The only
problem with teaching people to always hit the deer (and I don't know
that you are necessarily saying this here), is what happens when you
replace deer with a kid on a bicycle or a steel ingot that just fell
from a flatbed? I'd have to have someone have the "hit the obstacle"
reflex so deeply ingrained that they hit a 10 year-old on a bike when
the opposing lane was clear into the next county.


> BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer in over
> 25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more points.

Ouch! I've had some close calls on my Voyager, but so far haven't
picked up any hair...


Matt

[Montblack]

("Enrique" wrote)
> Do you also run over dogs, pregnant women and kids?
>
> Should someone run over you if you are in the road on a motorcycle or on
foot? Why not, in the big scheme of things your life is not worth more than
a deer's life?


In the really-really-really BIG scheme of things, there's an asteroid out
there that was taught - "Always hit the planet!"

At which point, Montblack = a deer = a ladybug = Madagascar...all dust.

Until that Kodak/Hubble moment happens - stealing a line from The West Wing:

"Why is a [deer's] life worth less to me than an American life?"
"I don't know, but it is."

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:57:11 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

<snip>

I was taught, no matter what the target, don't suddenly swerve. In
heavy traffic swerving can cause more problems than it solves.

Like seat belts you are playing the odds. Always maintain control as
long as possible.

I had an SUV pull out in front of my Transam a couple years back. Had
I swerved left I'd still have hit him, but it would have driven me
right into oncoming traffic and spun him. Had I swerved right I'd
have driven him right into that oncoming traffic and it would have put
what was left of the TA into the big trees.

Traffic was very heavy. When the parts settled two more cars coming
from the other direction swerved to avoid the cars slowing down and
they hit the SUV which was now setting in the left turn lane.
That traffic doesn't slow for anything including stopped cars or icy
road.

>
>Ouch! I've had some close calls on my Voyager, but so far haven't
>picked up any hair...

I hit a deer during a night landing at GDW a few years back. There
were no deer on the runway, but this one decided she wanted to be on
the other side. The timing was about as close as it could get to
minimize the damage. She was going so fast that her head hit behind
the prop circle.. Just milliseconds earlier and she'd have hit the
prop and nose gear. Milliseconds later and she'd have hit farther out
on the wing where the impact would have had much more leverage and in
a much more fragile area. As it was the impact ruptured the fuel
bladder in the tank on that side, even though the deer did not make
contact with the tank.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>
>Matt

[Robert Henry]

>
> Why do you know that? ABS doesn't make you steer any better, unless
> you've locked your brakes.

On a snow covered surface, I do not believe that I could have kept the
brakes unlocked in a conventional vehicle. The straightline physics
principle would have applied. It is likely that I would have made the
trifecta, hitting the deer, the oncoming traffic and the ditch. (For some
reason, I wasn't introduced to the concept of hitting the deer until I
started flying airplanes.)

> I agree that average to poor drivers will do
> better with ABS.

Well, apparently not. It is conceivable if not likely that is the group that
tends to run off the road or rollover more often in ABS vehicles, negating
the advantage.

> Very good drivers will often not do much better and
> and can do worse with ABS.

Back at you; how do you know that? There are probably so few very good
drivers out there as to be of no consequence. I've had a 5-year good
driver credit since I was 21; so I'm the exception to this statement?

More to the point, I stand by my original statement. Training (and
experience) is the issue. To rephrase your statement, I would say that a
driver of any level driving an ABS-equipped vehicle without proper training,
if any, and/or experience with ABS will often not do much better and can do
worse. I believe this is what is suggested by the statistics.

> However, good
> braking technique without ABS is about equally good.

Perhaps. In the interest of full disclosure, I am probably dependent on
ABS; if the system failed when needed most, I'd be toast. The difference is
that I believe, and I think the body of knowledge suggests, that the human
being is unable to sustain the level of performance needed to use "good
braking technique" when it is needed most (e.g., at night, in the mountains,
snowing). On the other hand, the ABS system is most likely to be there when
the driver needs it most. As such, I think ABS is the better way to go
overall, but not as a supplement to good driving technique. (Sort of like
using a parachute to supplement good ADM.)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Henry wrote:
>>Why do you know that? ABS doesn't make you steer any better, unless
>>you've locked your brakes.
>
>
> On a snow covered surface, I do not believe that I could have kept the
> brakes unlocked in a conventional vehicle. The straightline physics
> principle would have applied. It is likely that I would have made the
> trifecta, hitting the deer, the oncoming traffic and the ditch. (For some
> reason, I wasn't introduced to the concept of hitting the deer until I
> started flying airplanes.)

Only if you applied the brakes, or applied them too hard. My first
choice is always to steer around an obstacle rather than to try to stop
short of it, given the option. Unfortunately, most of our driver
education advocates braking rather than steering. If you don't hit the
brakes at all when on snow, you can steer reasonably well. And if you
are in full ABS mode (pedal to the metal), the steering even then gets
pretty dicey if on snow or ice. I know as I experiment a lot in parking
lots in the winter. It is great fun and good practice! Drives the wife
crazy though... :-)


>>I agree that average to poor drivers will do
>>better with ABS.
>
>
> Well, apparently not. It is conceivable if not likely that is the group that
> tends to run off the road or rollover more often in ABS vehicles, negating
> the advantage.
>
>
>>Very good drivers will often not do much better and
>>and can do worse with ABS.
>
>
> Back at you; how do you know that? There are probably so few very good
> drivers out there as to be of no consequence. I've had a 5-year good
> driver credit since I was 21; so I'm the exception to this statement?

I'm talking mostly about road tests done by car magazines and motorcycle
magazines. ABS almost always increases stopping distance on dry
pavement, gravel, and snow. It tends to be about a wash on wet pavement
and ice. The main advantage I've seen is in cases where one side of the
car is on ice and the other on pavement (happens often in the northeast
in the winter). ABS clearly provides an advantage here with its
differential braking capability.


> More to the point, I stand by my original statement. Training (and
> experience) is the issue. To rephrase your statement, I would say that a
> driver of any level driving an ABS-equipped vehicle without proper training,
> if any, and/or experience with ABS will often not do much better and can do
> worse. I believe this is what is suggested by the statistics.

I agree that proper training AND frequent practice are key to almost any
activity involved a motorized vehicle.


>> However, good
>>braking technique without ABS is about equally good.
>
>
> Perhaps. In the interest of full disclosure, I am probably dependent on
> ABS; if the system failed when needed most, I'd be toast. The difference is
> that I believe, and I think the body of knowledge suggests, that the human
> being is unable to sustain the level of performance needed to use "good
> braking technique" when it is needed most (e.g., at night, in the mountains,
> snowing). On the other hand, the ABS system is most likely to be there when
> the driver needs it most. As such, I think ABS is the better way to go
> overall, but not as a supplement to good driving technique. (Sort of like
> using a parachute to supplement good ADM.)

Unfortunately, the real world statistics don't show a clear advantage
for ABS. And this is from thousands of accidents involving people of
many different skills and many different vehicles. Even the insurance
companies were caught off guard as some originally offered discounts for
ABS vehicles being sure they would reduce claims. Didn't happen and try
to find a company that still offers a discount for ABS...


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roger Halstead wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:57:11 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I was taught, no matter what the target, don't suddenly swerve. In
> heavy traffic swerving can cause more problems than it solves.

In heavy traffic, I agree. With no traffic, I completely disagree.
Swerving is by far the most effective avoidance maneuver if you have a
place to swerve too. This is true of cars, motorcycles, and
particularly, airplanes. It is especially hard to stop the latter, even
when on the ground! If you were taught to never, ever swerve, then you
should ask for your money back as you had a lousy teacher.


> Like seat belts you are playing the odds. Always maintain control as
> long as possible.

Absolutely. I never suggested losing control.


> I had an SUV pull out in front of my Transam a couple years back. Had
> I swerved left I'd still have hit him, but it would have driven me
> right into oncoming traffic and spun him. Had I swerved right I'd
> have driven him right into that oncoming traffic and it would have put
> what was left of the TA into the big trees.
>
> Traffic was very heavy. When the parts settled two more cars coming
> from the other direction swerved to avoid the cars slowing down and
> they hit the SUV which was now setting in the left turn lane.
> That traffic doesn't slow for anything including stopped cars or icy
> road.

Read what I wrote earlier. I never suggested swerving into either
traffic or large fixed objects. Nice that you snipped out the relevant
parts of my previous post(s).


Matt

[ET]

"Enrique" > wrote in
:

> Do you also run over dogs, pregnant women and kids?
>
> Should someone run over you if you are in the road on a motorcycle or
> on foot? Why not, in the big scheme of things your life is not worth
> more than a deer's life?

You "hit the deer" because you will most likely injure your self and others
less by doing that than swerving wildly into a tree, or worse, into
oncoming traffic.....

I imagine the points thing is more of a tounge in cheek ....

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Robert Henry]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:57:11 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I was taught, no matter what the target, don't suddenly swerve. In
> heavy traffic swerving can cause more problems than it solves.

Like flying, I was taught to always have an out. In most cases, this is an
entire lane (left or right non-movement lanes). In the middle lane, or no
shoulder construction zones, or snowbanks, add extra following space - no
tailgating!

At any given moment, you must know whether you can go right or left. If you
can't do either, then you need to make an adjustment so that you can, or
there is plenty of room in front. Try it; it can be exhausting if overdone,
but it's good practice.

$.02

[Robert Henry]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only if you applied the brakes, or applied them too hard.

Yes, I saw an impending problem standing in the middle of the road to my
left with a ditch to my right- I was braking.

> My first
> choice is always to steer around an obstacle rather than to try to stop
> short of it, given the option.

Correct. I wasn't able to stop in time and the animal was in the other lane.

> Unfortunately, most of our driver
> education advocates braking rather than steering.

Agree!

> If you don't hit the
> brakes at all when on snow, you can steer reasonably well. And if you
> are in full ABS mode (pedal to the metal), the steering even then gets
> pretty dicey if on snow or ice.

Less responsive for sure, but not impossible. On a non-ABS vehicle, once
the wheels lock, getting them unlocked requires a period of reduced brake
pressure - a pressure far less than maximum braking. Steering is impossible
until that braking pressure is released. That straightline physics problem
is a factor until then, some stopping distance has to be sacrificed, and
critical moments are ticking away.

> I know as I experiment a lot in parking
> lots in the winter. It is great fun and good practice! Drives the wife
> crazy though... :-)

Exactly, and oh well.
>
>
>
> I'm talking mostly about road tests done by car magazines and motorcycle
> magazines. ABS almost always increases stopping distance on dry
> pavement, gravel, and snow. It tends to be about a wash on wet pavement
> and ice.

The NHTSA study stated that ABS reduced stopping distances in most road
conditions, including dry pavement - just "less so." Since we're both less
interested in stopping distance anyway, this isn't really worth drawing
swords over.

> Unfortunately, the real world statistics don't show a clear advantage
> for ABS. And this is from thousands of accidents involving people of
> many different skills and many different vehicles.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the best driver in the world is going
to do poorly in an ABS-vehicle if there is 1) no idea/training on how to use
it, or 2) that it is even there (like an average driver with a rental car).
Think of it like spell check - if we hit cancel - send it anyay when it
automatically pops up, the best speller in the world might send out a
message with a typo. It rarely catches omitted words either. ;)

> Even the insurance
> companies were caught off guard as some originally offered discounts for
> ABS vehicles being sure they would reduce claims. Didn't happen and try
> to find a company that still offers a discount for ABS...

Funny, how if you go to an all day defensive driving clinic, they'll give
you a defensive driver discount. I just checked my policy, and you have to
be over 50 years of age to qualify for the discount. The insurance companies
know that it's about training and experience, not technology. If you look at
the training announcements from Cirrus since the statistical fleet crash
rate went through the roof, you'll see they got the same message.

On the other hand, I do receive an ABS discount from my insurance company.
It only applies to collision and comprehensive, though. ;)

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:59:45 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Read what I wrote earlier. I never suggested swerving into either
>traffic or large fixed objects. Nice that you snipped out the relevant
>parts of my previous post(s).

Don't take it personal, I always try to snip everything except the
points I'm answering. Sometimes a bit extra gets lost.

I hate to see a one line answer on two pages of accumulated post.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers


>
>
>Matt

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:37:05 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:57:11 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I was taught, no matter what the target, don't suddenly swerve. In
>> heavy traffic swerving can cause more problems than it solves.
>
>Like flying, I was taught to always have an out. In most cases, this is an
>entire lane (left or right non-movement lanes). In the middle lane, or no
>shoulder construction zones, or snowbanks, add extra following space - no
>tailgating!
>
>At any given moment, you must know whether you can go right or left. If you
>can't do either, then you need to make an adjustment so that you can, or

In heavy traffic it may not be practical. With traffic moving at
express way speeds with only a couple of car lengths space, all lanes
full, if you slow down, you become the hazard. I don't like those
conditions, but they do exist.

The SUV that ended up in the left turn lane was hit by two more cars
about 5 minutes after the parts quit rolling around, but just before
the police arrived. The one guy got off by telling them he was trying
to turn into the parking lot drive way, which is where he ended up
after spinning around. As the second one made it airborne out over
the parking lot by about 30 feet before landing, he really didn't have
a valid excuse.

>there is plenty of room in front. Try it; it can be exhausting if overdone,
>but it's good practice.

In my case I had lots of space between me and the car in front, but
the SUV shot out of a parking lot driveway with all 4
spinning/burning. I had just enough time to get my foot on the
brake.12 feet of skid marks means I didn't slow down very much before
I hit him broad side. He was going fast enough that it spun me CCW
and I ended up in a parking lot on the other side of the road.

I really do believe in defensive driving. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>$.02
>

[Montblack]

("Roger Halstead" wrote)
> I hate to see a one line answer on two pages of accumulated post.


It seems like that problem is getting worse these days.

People, please trim your posts.

Just me being <snippy> tonight. :-)

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:
> > I hate to see a one line answer on two pages of accumulated post.
>
> It seems like that problem is getting worse these days.
>
> People, please trim your posts.

Hear, hear!

[Robert Henry]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> In my case I had lots of space between me and the car in front, but
> the SUV shot out of a parking lot driveway with all 4
> spinning/burning. I had just enough time to get my foot on the
> brake.12 feet of skid marks means I didn't slow down very much before
> I hit him broad side. He was going fast enough that it spun me CCW
> and I ended up in a parking lot on the other side of the road.
>
> I really do believe in defensive driving. <:-))
>

Well, that's quite a bit different, I'd say. It is however, the one time you
don't want ABS so they can measure.

12 feet of skid - At 40 mph that's probably .5 seconds from cognition to
impact.

You should probably get that bull's-eye painted over, too. ;)

Bob

[Colin Kingsbury]

Chute, because it can turn a number of potentially-unsurvivable situations
into potentially-survivable ones.

Though on average, a "magic six gallons of gas" would prevent a ton of
accidents. Maybe we should start a secret campaign to mislabel airplanes and
gas gauges?

-cwk.

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
\>
> So, if you ever had an unexpected need for one of these (unspecified)
things,
> which would you prefer. A chute on the airplane, or six more gallons of
gas?
>
> Jose

[Teacherjh]

>>
Chute, because it can turn a number of potentially-unsurvivable situations
into potentially-survivable ones.
<<

"potentially-unsurvivable": Maybe you won't survive. Maybe you will.
"potentially-survivable": Maybe you'll survive. Maybe you won't.

I'd want more of a difference in outcome before I trade six gallons for a
chute. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roger Halstead wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:59:45 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Read what I wrote earlier. I never suggested swerving into either
>>traffic or large fixed objects. Nice that you snipped out the relevant
>>parts of my previous post(s).
>
>
> Don't take it personal, I always try to snip everything except the
> points I'm answering. Sometimes a bit extra gets lost.

I don't take it personally, but in this case it completely changed what
I said.


> I hate to see a one line answer on two pages of accumulated post.

I agree, but you shouldn't snip so much that the meaning is completely
lost. That is rather disengenuous at best.


Matt