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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Henry" wrote
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. You may well be right. However, it's a distinction without a difference. The effect is the same - the safety advantage fails to materialize because of the human element, even though there's nothing wrong with the technology. 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. Right. And therefore it doesn't really matter whether the cause is being more agressive or just not understanding the system - either way, the safety gain will fail to materialize. Something very similar occurs in privately owned twins. The transition training available is generally grossly inadequate. You don't want to know how little multiengine experience the average practicing multiengine instructor actually has. Decent simulators are generally not available. As a result, the safety advantage of the second engine generally fails to materialize. In fact, all the safety advantages - ABS, chute, second engine - are real. However, they are LIMITED. There are things they WILL do for you, there are things they WON'T do for you, and they are never free - they all have downsides. Michael |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Well, someone else with this idea just folded.
http://www.morrowaircraft.com/ "Lee Elson" wrote in message om... Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to several groups. I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business. In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range ( 600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these restrictions. I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies that could use such transportation services and would find it cost effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example where someone has made a business meeting these types of transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g. who are the customers, what are the costs). email replies preferred |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing?
Mike MU-2 "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, ET said: "Colin Kingsbury" wrote in news:XW4Ab.542 : Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22 because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you. My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with this system still be as limited as your statement suggests?? The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you have pireps of no icing. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said:
Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing? I don't think so, yet. See http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...&article_id=99 "For the 2003 model year, Cirrus is offering an optional TKS anti-icing system for the SR22. The "weeping wing" system--that will deice the wings, horizontal stabilizer and propeller--will not be certified for known icing, but will be designed to allow pilots to escape from icing conditions. The fluid reservoir will hold about an hour's worth of protection in order to preclude pilots from thinking they can use the system to fly in ice. A known-icing system with a larger reservoir will be a follow-on development. The TKS system is priced at $19,700." -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Documentation: Cryptic, lacking, erroneous. Pick any three. -- Arvid |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:11:16 GMT, "McGregor"
wrote: Well, someone else with this idea just folded. http://www.morrowaircraft.com/ Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info? Rob |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
... Well, someone else with this idea just folded. http://www.morrowaircraft.com/ Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info? From AvWeb's AvFlash: AIR TAXI COMPANY SHUTS DOWN... Financial problems have grounded SkyTaxi Inc, an Oregon start-up that received national exposure for its hybrid air service. SkyTaxi, whose business blended elements of regular airline service and charter service, vacated its maintenance hangar at the Salem airport and laid off employees last month. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186236 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Montblack"
writes: I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance coverage First, I'm an engineer talking law G. I have heard that a law like "must wear helmet" is useful when you are involved in an accident with someone not wearing a helmet. That is, the lack of helmet is contributing to the injuries. The city may have the law and not enforce it (or very lightly) but it still makes the non helmet rider contributory. I heard that some years ago, NYC had a law against wearing the 4 inch spike heas shoes. They didn't arrest women (or men) wearing the shoes but it protected the city when the wearer got caught in a sidewalk grateing and was hurt. Chuck |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
I've never used a parachute. My uncle and father are USAF Korea vets, and
had them onboard always, and my uncle had to eject out of his F86 once. I found in his Dad's papers (my grandfather's) the letter my uncle wrote to him describing this event, Uncle being about 20 at the time: "I was up about 10 minutes and had to bail out because the flight leader saw smoke and I had a forward fire warning light on. I ejected at about 14,000 and lost my helmet. For some reason my foot hung up in the seat but I kicked that away with no trouble. [describes a small cut he got in his head from a chute buckle] I'll bet I looked wild when I walked into Wilson Creek (a very small town) with my chute all over my shoulder and my collar soaked in blood." I just happen to have this letter at hand now to quote from, it having surfaced recently. Your dismissal of the safety benefits of a Cirrus chute just does not fit with my perception. The first save by such a chute came about just a few miles from where I live, near Denton Texas. The concept in my view is brilliant. If I ever buy a single again, it will have one. I had an engine failure in the last single I owned. I stand by my statement that it might save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus that will be making an off-airport landing soon. I know you'll find something arrogant to say about this, so take your last shot. "Michael" wrote in message om... "Dan Thompson" wrote OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will - she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips. As dumb as car drivers and bikers. I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained. 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? I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good for. Michael |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
I stand by my statement that it might save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus and I retain the opinion that there would be fewer iced up cirri if there were no chute. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html Most interesting, to me. It supports my contention about controllability, and states that stopping distance is actually better in all situations except gravel (which is a rather uncommon road surface). It is plausible to infer that the ABS vehicles were driven more recklessly based upon the rollover and off-road accident statistics, but proving/disproving this remains the issue. Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|