Iced up Cirrus crashes

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

In article ,
wrote:

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

I have logged half an hour of 'copter time, and frankly they scare the
pants off me.

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


(It was a sight to see, let me tell you.) My
understanding is that:

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

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

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

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

It's called the height-velocity diagram, and we are trained to stay out
of it as much as possible. Some operations, typically ones that only a
helicopter can do (and also not things that you'd do as a private pilot)
put the pilot into one of the hatched (bad) areas of the H-V diagram at
times. The idea is to minimize that time. I have about 130 hours in
fling-wingers and I probably have five minutes at most in the hatched
area (i.e. maximum performance liftoffs over the theoretical 50'
obstacle).

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

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

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

Generally speaking, helicopter pilots are more nervous 8^) but just
because the engine quits doesn't mean you're going to die - not by a
long shot. It pays to always have a landing spot picked out - not that
difficult if you maintain a sufficient AGL altitude and try not to fly
over unfavorable (mountainous/hilly/water) terrain more than necessary.

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

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

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

Dave Blevins

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

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

address this fact.

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

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

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

Michael

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

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

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

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

Pete

Recently, Michael posted:
I wrote earlier:
As I see it, this very notion is contrary to the way that the general
public looks at almost any activity. Driving a car is dangerous,
too, but we have not seen any simulators or recurrent training
requirements to address this fact.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

Most of the safety improvements for motor vehicles comes from improved
handling and stopping, and stronger (but usually heavier) structure.

I disagree, here, Peter. In which vehicle would you rather be a passenger
in a high-speed accident, an SUV or an Indianapolis racer? As a long-time
sports car owner and driver, I can tell you that safer construction is not
dependent on weight. My first sports car, a 1959 Austin Healy Sprite,
weighed about 1,400 lbs. was wrecked when a Cadillac cut me off and hit me
on a 45º angle driver-side collision front-end when I was doing about 50
mph on a divided roadway. Yet, I suffered no injuries whatsoever. There is
no amount of money that would get me to try that in any typical sedan.

None of those solutions are applicable to aviation. Of course, motor
vehicles also enjoy a much lower velocity during an accident; if no
aircraft ever went faster than 60mph (even in a dive or after
structural failure), fatalities would be much lower.

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

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

We're looking at different overly-stringent regluations, here. On one
hand, innovative aircraft design and certification has been stifled by
regulation. Meanwhile, the human element, which may be the most critical
component to providing safety, is being *less* restricted by allowing more
people with less training to get involved in aviation. I think we've got
it backwards.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

-lance smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete

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

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

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

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

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

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

We actually *agree*, and have said the same thing in different ways: a
stronger structure is not necessarily a safer structure. The idea behind
sports & racing car chassis design is to transfer the energy of a crash
*away* from the occupant. Stronger structures transfer that energy *to*
the occupant, and current automotive design trends try to counteract this
problem by letting the occupants bounce of something soft. Cheap, but not
clever or necessarily safe.

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

A gear-up landing isn't an accident, any more than scraping a pillar
in a parking garage is.

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

In other words, if you want to count
aviation accidents like that, you need to count all the auto
accidents like that as well.

I agree. No problem.

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

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

Regards,

Neil