Iced up Cirrus crashes

Would it be ironic if Cirrus marketed an identical bird without the
CAPS that wound up having a significantly better accident record?

a.

C J Campbell wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm
convinced
that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:

Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.
Consider the Bonanza, for instance, which went through a period where
it
seemed like it was practically raining aluminum. The Cessna P210 also
had
its problems like that. They are all good airplanes, but their
greater
capabilities have tended to encourage pilots to fly into conditions
that
they should not.

I know a pilot who wants a Cessna 337 with boots, "just in case" he
encounters icing. Well, the 337 is not certified for known ice, even
with
boots. If he buys such a plane, I can practically guarantee that
eventually
he will fly into ice. It is not simply a matter of accidentally
flying into
ice, but the fact that he has boots will encourage him to fly into
conditions that he would not consider acceptable otherwise. There is
nothing
"just in case" about it, even though that is how thinks of it in his
mind.
He will believe that his icing encounter is accidental, and thank God
that
he had boots on his plane. But the fact remains that he will have
flown when
he would not have otherwise. If he does it often enough, and gets
away with
it, then eventually he will get into trouble.

The same could be said for every other hazard in general aviation:
low level
maneuvering, VFR into IMC, flying with broken equipment, etc. You
know that
you don't really need that vacuum pump; it is just a short cross
country and
you know the way like the back of your hand, so you go. Of course
nothing
happens; it was a great flight. So next time you try it but the cloud
cover
is a little lower. Next time you were just skimming the bottoms of
the
clouds, but nothing happened. It gets to be a regular practice, then
suddenly your laziness, complacency, and need to get there all
combine to
get you in serious trouble. You will really wish you had fixed the
vacuum
pump, that you had paid more attention to the weather, that you had
filed
IFR, that you had decided to stay home, etc. Every link in the chain
of
events leading up to the accident had been there for many flights,
but this
time it got you. You did not just wake up one morning and say, "Today
I am
going to fly VFR into IMC without a vacuum pump," because you know
that is
incredibly stupid. But you did something incredibly stupid anyway.
And let
me be clear about this: the pilots who do this are not bad pilots or
stupid
pilots or greenies. To the contrary, they are typically the most
experienced
and capable pilots. The real problem is that they learned the wrong
lessons
from their experience.

All right, Cirrus tells pilots that their parachute system can save
their
lives. Their salesmen will tell say that it can save your butt if you
are
IFR in the mountains at night when the engine quits. So it might. But
what
is the message here? Cirrus is teaching pilots to fly IFR in the
mountains
at night in a single engine plane. They are effectively saying that
it is
safe to do so because the Cirrus has a parachute. Perhaps the engine
has
been running rough, or the AI does not seem up to par, but you have
your
little ace in the hole, right? So they go. Next they take off into
low level
IMC and/or ice and/or without doing a proper instrument check and
they are
found later in the day a mile from the end of the runway with bits of
that
parachute all around them. They got into trouble, were still too low
for
effective CAPS deployment, and died. Did Cirrus intend for them to do
that?
No, but they encouraged that behavior by selling the CAPS system.

I don't mean to imply that CAPS is a bad idea. I would like to see it
on
other planes, along with air bags, better crashworthiness, advanced
avionics, and all the rest. But these should not be sold as a means
of
escaping the consequences of your own bad judgment. Airliners have
fantastic
redundancy and safety capability, but their pilots do not have bad
accident
records, despite the fact that these aircraft are arguably much more
complex, faster, and less maneuverable than anything in GA.

Professional pilots and general aviation pilots are separated not so
much by
the differences in equipment and capabilities of their aircraft
(though
these are enormous) but by training and supervision. An airline pilot
who
takes too many risks is likely to come to the attention of others who
can do
something about it. A GA pilot may become the subject of hangar
gossip, but
he is likely to continue doing whatever it is that he is doing. An
airline
pilot is largely locked into rigid rules and procedures that he must
follow -- a lot of his decisions were made for him a long time ago.
The GA
pilot has considerably more freedom to bend his personal rules, if he
has
any at all. He has considerably less guidance, and when he has a
problem he
can't always call up dispatch or maintenance to ask their opinion.
Loneliness, less training, no simulator training, inferior or aging
equipment, fatigue, complacency, manufacturers' safety claims,
alcohol and
other personal problems: all these add together to create general
aviation's
terrible accident record.

John and Martha King, among others, have been attacking this problem
head
on. These pilots and instructors are no longer willing to say that
general
aviation is safe, because they know what a dangerous message that is.
Flying
is dangerous. The pilot who forgets that is even more dangerous. The
Kings
have a rule: "the most chicken pilot wins." I like that rule. It
should be
expanded even to passengers. "The most chicken person on board wins."
That
is, if anyone is even slightly uncomfortable about the flight, then
the
flight does not go, no questions asked. Modern methods of teaching
risk
management and scenario based training are taking far too long to be
adopted
by the training community. We need this, and we need better
simulators for
general aviation, and we need better recurrent training. If we had
those
things, I think that we could go a long way toward cutting the
accident
rate.

Recently, C J Campbell posted:
(an excellent analysis, mostly snipped for brevity)

Modern methods of teaching risk management and
scenario based training are taking far too long to be adopted by the
training community. We need this, and we need better simulators for
general aviation, and we need better recurrent training. If we had
those things, I think that we could go a long way toward cutting the
accident rate.

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. The expansion of GA to include licenses with even less
stringent requirements can be seen as a movement based on the perspective
that flying is not sufficiently dangerous to warrant more safety efforts.
As more of the general population is included in aviation, we can only
expect to see more bad judgement and the related consequences. I don't see
any trend toward limiting access to those who qualify under more strict
rules and requirements.

Regards,

Neil

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, 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

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

"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

I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
hours flown in each type.

Anyway, hope I'm not intruding on your forum, but interesting to see we
have the same discussions.

Best Regards. Fly safe.


--
scotta2728
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

scotta2728 wrote:

I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
hours flown in each type.

What is the overall tone of the discussions over on the Cirrus group about
this accident?

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

scotta2728 wrote:

I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
down in icing conditions,

Strike one.

at night,

Strike two.


in the mountains.

Strike three, you're dead.


There has been a
lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
hours flown in each type.

About a million to one difference. As far as statistics go every Cirrus
crash is a bad deal because there's so few of them out there compared to
182's. Every wreck has a definite movement of the stats. One 182 wreck
doesn't move the stats at all.