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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Colin Kingsbury wrote:
Dan, et. al, Here's an interesting link: http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower in states that don't have helmet laws*. Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter intuitive to be sure. Matt |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with their moronic passengers who flew with them. You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes. I tip my hat to you. "Michael" wrote in message om... "Dan Thompson" wrote "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being provided. That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty good one for most people. When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped. It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit. Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example, your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being provided. The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS (even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here. If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful. First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or even mathematically modeled. If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it. Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers (which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in this case. Michael |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... ABS is proven and reliable. However, it causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit. While the rest of the post was extremely well constructed, and strikingly similar to some thoughts I had on the issue (I had images of the ice laden tangled chute having a terminal velocity exceeding that of the aircraft that had the effect of pulling the plane tail first into the ground), I have to point out one nuance of difference on the point quoted. 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. 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. Just as it takes a considerably different mindset for a panicked driver with ABS to be prepared to steer around an obstruction during an event that requires maximum braking, and actually do it, it takes a considerably different mindset for a pilot to abdicate control of the aircraft when all of the training is oriented toward maintaining and recovering control of the aircraft. That mindset is a function of training, and until there is a simulator that can emulate the experience and provide that training, I think there will be accidents like the one in NY in which the question cannot be conclusively answered about whether or not the pilot activated the CAPS system. Of course, it would be nice if the design of the activation system were able to provide an indication that deployment was attempted. That said, I will ONLY buy vehicles with ABS, and I really like the Cirrus. Bob |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Thompson wrote: They initially gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor weather as they thought the ABS would save them. I still contend the root cause here is the misinformation created from a lack of proper training. In addition, the ABS may have been able to effect a different outcome, even despite the reckless behavior, if the driver actually knew how to use it. To me, drivers treat ABS like airbags: 'I know I have it, but I don't need to know how to use it because it functions on its own for my safety.' As such, perhaps we should conclude that it's not the ABS or the parachute, it's the a priori behavior that creates the situation in the first place (including proper training in addition to good, up-to-the-moment ADM) that deserves the attention. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Thompson wrote: "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners than I do. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact. If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the documents then? Dashi |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Thompson wrote:
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers. They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with their moronic passengers who flew with them. You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes. I tip my hat to you. Have you always had this problem with reading comprehension? We said none of the above ... OK, maybe implied that some car drivers aren't real bright. Then again, that is hardly a revelation to anyone who has driven recently. Matt |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message om... ABS is proven and reliable. However, it causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit. While the rest of the post was extremely well constructed, and strikingly similar to some thoughts I had on the issue (I had images of the ice laden tangled chute having a terminal velocity exceeding that of the aircraft that had the effect of pulling the plane tail first into the ground), I have to point out one nuance of difference on the point quoted. 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. 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. Most drivers aren't trained properly period! Just as it takes a considerably different mindset for a panicked driver with ABS to be prepared to steer around an obstruction during an event that requires maximum braking, and actually do it, it takes a considerably different mindset for a pilot to abdicate control of the aircraft when all of the training is oriented toward maintaining and recovering control of the aircraft. That mindset is a function of training, and until there is a simulator that can emulate the experience and provide that training, I think there will be accidents like the one in NY in which the question cannot be conclusively answered about whether or not the pilot activated the CAPS system. Of course, it would be nice if the design of the activation system were able to provide an indication that deployment was attempted. Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer around obstacles whether you have ABS or not. The only difference with ABS is that you don't need to think about modulating the brakes in addition to thinking about steering. That said, I will ONLY buy vehicles with ABS, and I really like the Cirrus. I'd rather have a non ABS vehicle, but they are very hard to find. I still have both and much prefer my non ABS vehicle, especially in the snow. I can stop much faster without ABS. On dry pavement, you can also stop faster if you are proficient at threshold braking. However, very few people are so I don't doubt that the average driver will stop faster in an ABS equipped car. Threshold braking takes a lot more skill than mashing the peddle with all your might! The proficient driver will stop about as fast on dry pavement and faster on loose surfaces such as sand and snow. The only advantage I can think of for ABS that can't be duplicated by driver skill is having one side of the car on pavement and the other on ice. ABS can modulate the brakes individually on each wheel. No driver can do that. On soft surfaces, locked wheels allow you to stop faster, but at the loss of steering control. However, if all I need to do is stop, then I'd much rather have the option to lock the wheels. If I need to steer I can threshold brake and modulate the brakes myself. My only real close call in the winter was with my new ABS equipped minivan. Didn't have the option to steer around as the windrows of plowed snow blocked the berm, and I couldn't lock the wheels to stop faster. I've driven in the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with my non ABS vehicle. Luckily, I was going slow enough to stop anyway, but the ABS raised my blood pressure considerably! It felt as though I had no brakes at all. With locked wheels, as the snow piles up in front of the tires, the braking force continually increases. I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never had the opportunity to fly one yet though... Matt |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Thompson wrote: They initially gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor weather as they thought the ABS would save them. I still contend the root cause here is the misinformation created from a lack of proper training. In addition, the ABS may have been able to effect a different outcome, even despite the reckless behavior, if the driver actually knew how to use it. To me, drivers treat ABS like airbags: 'I know I have it, but I don't need to know how to use it because it functions on its own for my safety.' That may well be the case. However, it still supports the point that often additional safety equipment doesn't have the desired effect for a variety of reasons that can't always be anticipatd. As such, perhaps we should conclude that it's not the ABS or the parachute, it's the a priori behavior that creates the situation in the first place (including proper training in addition to good, up-to-the-moment ADM) that deserves the attention. I think that was the basis of the argument. I don't think anyone said that the parachute wouldn't work as advertised, the argument was that the behavior of the pilot might increase the chances of needing the chute or of getting into situations where it can't help. I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight. Matt |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Dashi wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Thompson wrote: "I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest "argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners than I do. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact. If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the documents then? These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check it out yourself. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed...6/pr121096.htm http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html This one addresses a theory for the cause. As with all theories, there are those who question it, but it seems to be pretty well supported by the evidence. http://www.drivers.com/article/164/ Matt |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Most drivers aren't trained properly period! Absolutely true. Back before the summer, I had the opportunity to "drive IFR" through the Cumberland Gap. Road signs were only readable from within 30-50 feet. I was really wishing for a localiser for the lanes and off ramps. Cars streamed by me at 70-75. I maintained 50 just to keep from being rear ended. The very next weekend was Memorial Day Weekend; the weather persisted, and 100 vehicles were wrecked up there and the road was closed for 24 hours. Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer around obstacles whether you have ABS or not. Simply because steering is impossible if the tires are locked up. The studies also show most human beings are unable to modulate the brakes effectively overall. What I think happens is that in no-ABS cars, the reaction times and stopping distances are enough to overcome the need to steer - which doesn't matter, because it's nearly impossible unless stopping distance is sacrificed by the release of brake pressure. Then and only then is steering possible. In ABS vehicles, the car will always sacrfice distance for controllability. I submit that if the driver hasn't figured that out, the mindset is not correct for the equipment. I've driven in the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with my non ABS vehicle. Going back to my original point, you have much training in using non-ABS equipped vehicles. My training was in both, and I prefer the ABS - maybe it was easier to learn, or I didn't have to untrain all the non-ABS experience. I have been in similar situations in both kinds of cars and I can tell you the outcome was always better in the ABS equipped vehicle - just luck, maybe..., but no exaggeration. Of course, I don't change my driving style based upon the braking equipment either. I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never had the opportunity to fly one yet though... I have about 5 hours in an SR-22. All my training was in Cessnas. It was no transition despite sidestick, low-wing, and high performance. It came together like bread and butter. Highly recommended. And I didn't change my flying style based upon the chute or anything else in the airplane. Well, I didn't have to have anything like a chart or a checklist on my lap for the entire flight -but they were close at hand. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|