Cirrus Death Trap?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Happy Dog writes:

Examples, please.

Parachutes on Cirrus aircraft.

You said:

Because the set of situations in which the gadgets actually increase
security is much smaller than the set of situations in which they
_appear_ increase security to the unsophisticated observer.

Examples of the "situations" to which you refer.

And these failures have resulted in how many accidents vs. those caused
by
failures in old technology avionics?

They aren't widespread enough in most parts of the industry to be a
problem yet, and in any case, avionics failures are not a leading
cause of accidents, IIRC.

Sub-clinical, right? IOW, you can't back your claim with statistics.

m

Happy Dog writes:

Examples of the "situations" to which you refer.

The recent crash of a Cirrus in Manhattan.

Sub-clinical, right? IOW, you can't back your claim with statistics.

I don't need to back my claim at all. This isn't a contest.

I've worked with computers for decades. I know how poorly they are
programmed and how badly systems are designed. I know that nothing
with the apparent functionality of certain glass cockpits today can
possibly be certified safe for the price points at which they are
sold. Therefore they are almost certainly accidents waiting to
happen.

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would suggest
that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass instruments,
and not fly anything that gives glass avionics control over the
aircraft unless you have a positive way of disconnecting that control.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

One was due to a design flaw. The gap between the ailerons and wing was too
small and in a turn, with sufficient G forces and the accompanying bend in
the wing, the aileron jammed in position. I have to admit, I forget if this
resulted in a fatal accident or not.

mike

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Denny wrote:

Since you challenged me I just now did a partial search of the NTSB on
the 20 fatals in SR-20's, which reveals that 3 were the result of
control system failure.

My recollection of these accidents is that at least two of those three
were a result of a mechanic incorrectly mounting the ailerons, not
inherent
control system design flaws.


--
Peter

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would suggest
that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass instruments,
and not fly anything that gives glass avionics control over the
aircraft unless you have a positive way of disconnecting that control.

And, your basis for this "suggestion" is...?

Just because the computers you borrow from others are unreliable does not
impact the reliability of aviation electronics. Perhaps you should read up
on the reliability of traditional gauges before making such absurd and
ill-informed "suggestions".

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

And, your basis for this "suggestion" is...?

My experience with computers.

Just because the computers you borrow from others are unreliable does not
impact the reliability of aviation electronics. Perhaps you should read up
on the reliability of traditional gauges before making such absurd and
ill-informed "suggestions".

I know a great deal about computers, but I don't tell other people
that they are absurd and ill-informed just because they know less.
Ponder on that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in
Examples of the "situations" to which you refer.

The recent crash of a Cirrus in Manhattan.

You said:

Because the set of situations in which the gadgets actually increase
security is much smaller than the set of situations in which they
_appear_ increase security to the unsophisticated observer.

Now you're just being obtuse.


Sub-clinical, right? IOW, you can't back your claim with statistics.

I don't need to back my claim at all. This isn't a contest.

Correct. You don't even have to make a coherent response at all. But, it's
generally accepted that only trolls and morons make statements they won't
back up.

I've worked with computers for decades. I know how poorly they are
programmed and how badly systems are designed. I know that nothing
with the apparent functionality of certain glass cockpits today can
possibly be certified safe for the price points at which they are
sold. Therefore they are almost certainly accidents waiting to
happen.

In your opinion for which, as you note, you don't need to provide any
evidence.

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would suggest
that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass instruments,
and not fly anything that gives glass avionics control over the
aircraft unless you have a positive way of disconnecting that control.

You don't really know much about avionics. I back that statement with the
above paragraph as evidence.

m

"Mxsmanic"
Neil Gould writes:

And, your basis for this "suggestion" is...?

My experience with computers.

Just because the computers you borrow from others are unreliable does not
impact the reliability of aviation electronics. Perhaps you should read
up
on the reliability of traditional gauges before making such absurd and
ill-informed "suggestions".

I know a great deal about computers, but I don't tell other people
that they are absurd and ill-informed just because they know less.
Ponder on that.

I have. So identify some "computers" that you have concluded are acceptably
trustworthy in similarly critical situations. I won't bother to ask you to
explain the reasoning behind your answer. Just want to see you hoist
yourself even further.

m

Happy Dog writes:

I have. So identify some "computers" that you have concluded are acceptably
trustworthy in similarly critical situations.

The ones NASA put in Apollo spacecraft are acceptably trustworthy, as
are some others used on certain other craft (such as some Space
Shuttle computers), based on what I've heard of their development
process. Some avionics software is trustworthy, but less and less of
it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2006-10-13, wrote:
You've only argued that the type of aircraft was irrelevant at the
point of impact. I think we can all agree on that! But that dismisses
the possibility that this accident might not have happened if the
aircraft had been slower - like a C150.

True enough. But much of the original assertion was that the SR-20 is
the problem. If it was speed vs pilot reaction time - it's still not the
"fault" of the SR-20 or something that is disfavorable to the SR-20's
safety features. It could quite easily have been a Bonanza, a Mooney, a
Baron or a Van's RV-4.

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

On 2006-10-14, mike regish wrote:
One was due to a design flaw. The gap between the ailerons and wing was too
small and in a turn, with sufficient G forces and the accompanying bend in
the wing, the aileron jammed in position. I have to admit, I forget if this
resulted in a fatal accident or not.

That did result in a fatality IIRC - and it was in the test flying phase
of the aircraft. I expect the production aircraft was modified in the
light of this - after all, test flying is supposed to shake out bugs
like this. Occasionally, test flying is fatal to the test pilot.

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