Should I upgrade from Skylane to Cirrus SR20? (not mxmaniac infested)

"Mike Beede" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Gwengler,

a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")


Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.

Here's an interesting theory that apparently has at least some
experimental validation. Of course, since it's a psychology
thing, there's no agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis

Mike Beede

That was an interesting link. I was not aware of the Munich study, but my
own annecdotal observation in Miami Florida traffic at that time showed the
same result.

IIRC, insurance loss statistics also showed no change after a fairly short
time. It other words, losses returned to their previous level in months,
rather than years.

Peter

Some,

A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
of the middle of the steering wheel.


Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Some,

A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
of the middle of the steering wheel.


Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

hmmm, the last I looked the rate of car accidents in the US has been
pretty flat (according to statistics pulled from the US National Highway
Transportation somethingorother agency).

Maybe all the evil cellphone usage is countering the safety improvements...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On 2007-06-15, Thomas Borchert wrote:
Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

If you look at the bigger picture, it's less clear. For example, when
seatbelts were made mandatory in Britain, although the injury rate
went down amongst occupants of cars, the injury rate went up for
cyclists and pedestrians. Cars were crashing more often, but causing
less harm to their occupants (but causing more risk, nonetheless,
to those outside the vehicle).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2007-06-15, Thomas Borchert wrote:
Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

If you look at the bigger picture, it's less clear. For example, when
seatbelts were made mandatory in Britain, although the injury rate
went down amongst occupants of cars, the injury rate went up for
cyclists and pedestrians. Cars were crashing more often, but causing
less harm to their occupants (but causing more risk, nonetheless,
to those outside the vehicle).

This is exactly the sort of behavior that I have observed on the street,
without benefit of the statistics to back it up.

Some Other Guy wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Some,

A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
of the middle of the steering wheel.

Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

Accident rates do NOT plummet according to the very link posted
earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis

Not only does the Wikipedia entry list one rebuttal to the theory, a
Google search for "risk homeostasis" yields several papers that find
evidence to the contrary, such as this one:

"The risk homeostasis theory posits, in essence, that a control
mechanism analogous to the thermal homeostatic system in warm-blooded
animals tends to keep risk per unit time constant, and, as a
consequence, the number of traffic accidents per unit time of driving
also tends to remain constant, essentially independent of changes in the
traffic safety system. It is the purpose of the present research to
examine the validity of this claim using a wide variety of traffic
accident data. All the data examined are found to be incompatible with
the risk homeostasis theory. The only specific field accident data
offered in the literature to support the risk homeostasis theory are
found to, in fact, refute the theory. The accident data provide evidence
that a rich variety of user responses occur. While it is possible for
users to collectively respond in such a way that safety benefits are
completely cancelled, such a response is not particularly common; it is
certainly not universally occurring, as suggested by the risk
homeostasis theory. It is concluded that the risk homeostasis theory
should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it
and much evidence refuting it."

From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...o pt=Abstract

On 2007-06-13, Thomas Borchert wrote:
Gwengler,

a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")


Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.

Actually, percieved risk homeostatis is a well established psychological
phenomena - i.e. given safety improvements, a person generally will take
more risks until they are back at their normal level of risk comfort. So
people with ABS brakes and airbags tend to drive faster (and possibly
more recklessly) compared to when they didn't have ABS and airbags. It's
been cited in many road safety studies. There's no reason why it
wouldn't apply to aircraft.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan,

Actually, percieved risk homeostatis is a well established psychological
phenomena


Well, if you read the rest of the thread (and the literature), it is less
than established, I'd say.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Food for thought, and the thing I think of when the subject of Cirrus
come up is the insurance costs. If you are comparing an older 182 with
a brand new Cirrus, won't the hull-value part of your insurance eat
you alive...?
That's been one of the factors that gives me pause when considering
one of the local groups that has shares of an SR22 for sale. (but it's
not the only one).

I guess it all really depends on your "mission" that you need an
airplane for.
-Ryan in Madison

A 182 is an established and mature design. Foundair is building what
they call The Expedition. Not yet certified, but is a tricycle version
of the Bushhawk, with some improvements. I think I heard it was 8 inches
wider.

http://64.34.128.140/home.aspx

I only mention it to inform. I rather like it myself, but it is not for me.

John



gwengler wrote:

I would also agree that going from a C182 to am SR20 would be a
downgrade. The SR20 is much more comparable to a C172 with the
exception of speed. As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
etc. etc.
Be very careful about your view of the parachute. Cirrus airplanes do
not have a better safety record than other airplanes. Two main
reasons, a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle") and b) it is a very
difficult decision to actually pull the handle and many pilots so far
in Cirrus airplanes have not pulled it when they should have.

Gerd
ATP, based in CZBA