A thought on BRS

(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane

So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

Tom Seim

Tom Seim wrote:
(John Cochrane) wrote...

I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane


So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

Tom Seim wrote:
(John Cochrane) wrote...

I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane


So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

(John Cochrane) wrote
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

And so it would. Accident rates have been on the rise for years.
However, fatality and serious injury rates have been falling. Seat
belts, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety devices that operate
outside the driver's control make driving safer for the occupants -
not the vehicle.

It takes a much worse accident than it used to in order to cause
fatalities or serious injuries, but a lot less to total out a vehicle
- which was more expensive to begin with because of all the safety
features.

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:29:15 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
.. .
...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

Well put. Love it!

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

:-)

Nailhitter




Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote
But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

No, but a Cirrus is not a glider. A glider is NORMALLY flown just a
few knots over stall in turbulent air, and thus at (relatively) high
risk of spinning. I certainly would not accept a glider that could
not recover from at least a one-turn spin. A cirrus is an IFR
cruiser, and there is no reason to have it flying less than 20% over
stall unless you are within a few feet of the ground. The spin
characteristics of most 200+ mph 4+ person IFR cruisers are pretty
iffy.

Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
unrecoverable. Yet it had quite a career.

Michael

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

This has been the argument against raising the speed limits on our
highways, ever since they were lowered by that benevolent dictator
Jimmy Carter. The only problem, the argument is wrong! We learned that
after raising the limits and watched the fatality rates continue to
drop.

Common wisdom is, sometimes, uncommon nonsense.

I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.
Raising the limits merely reflected the reality of the situation.
Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
that the vast majority of the population won't accept. This clearly
happened with the poorly thought out national speed limit. But there
still is a group that, even with all of the evidence to the contrary,
thinks that it will work.

Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.

Tom Seim

Tom Seim wrote:
by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.

I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
rather than a not so benevolent one...

Marc

Vaughn wrote:

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...

...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes?

This might make me safer, as I would be less inclined to fly in
contests, especially large ones.

And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes.

Without a transponder, I wouldn't fly in the Minden area. It does give
me a small improvement in safety where I normally fly, and more so in
the Southern California area. So, maybe the transponder, overall, has me
just as safe as I would be without one.

And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost.

Before GPS, I used higher altitude margins, because I couldn't be sure
of where I was. I suspect I over-compensated, so I think most of the
time I did have higher margins. Once in a while, I probably misjudged
badly enough, my margins were lower than they are with a GPS. So,
perhaps a wash with respective to safety.

Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence.

We'd fly slower, but this probably wouldn't help, as our accidents are
rarely breakups in turbulence.

As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.

Same as above: we'd just fly slower, so not likely to help.

Here's another one: make everyone fly without hull insurance. Pilots
would be more careful when they flew if they knew any damage came
entirely out of their wallet. The same for caring for the glider on the
ground: more gliders would be put away in the trailer instead of tied
out, and canopies would be protected better.

With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

I know Vaughn wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but it does illustrate the
compensation that happens whenever there is a change in equipment.
People are always making trade-offs between safety and functionality,
but I think they usually take a middle path: a bit more safety and a bit
more functionality. Problems arise if they think more safety has been
provided than is actually the case.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA