![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|