Iced up Cirrus crashes

If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
seconds, you die

If the engine fails and you don't notice, you are already dead.

Jose

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:01 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .

I have logged half an hour of 'copter time, and frankly they scare the
pants off me.

Sorry to hear that. My first ride back in '83 was a total blast, and
it's why I started to take lessons back then. Unfortunately budget and
life got in the way, and it took me until 2001 to get the private pilot
ticket. I'm hoping to get my commercial rating in the next year or so
(although I've been saying that for a while now).


(It was a sight to see, let me tell you.) My
understanding is that:

1. If you take your hand off the stick, you die.

Helicopters, unlike most fixed wing aircraft, are inherently unstable.
So yes, if you let the cyclic go in any light helicopter, you'll
probably get upside down in short order.

The key thing here is not to let go of the cyclic 8^) . It's not really
a problem, other than at engine start when you should kinda cradle the
cyclic between your knees as you crank the engine (at least in the small
helos I've flown). And, properly trimmed (assuming the helicopter you're
flying has pitch and roll electric trim), you could fly hands off for a
little while.

2. If you within some (fairly large) envelope of unsafe combinations of
altitude and airspeed and your engine fails, you die.

It's called the height-velocity diagram, and we are trained to stay out
of it as much as possible. Some operations, typically ones that only a
helicopter can do (and also not things that you'd do as a private pilot)
put the pilot into one of the hatched (bad) areas of the H-V diagram at
times. The idea is to minimize that time. I have about 130 hours in
fling-wingers and I probably have five minutes at most in the hatched
area (i.e. maximum performance liftoffs over the theoretical 50'
obstacle).

3. If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
seconds, you die, even if you were in the "safe" range of altitude and
airspeed to begin with.

First of all, you will notice an engine failure pretty quickly. If it's
sudden (rather than a gradual loss of power), you're going to get a
large amount of yaw. Very noticeable, and correctable with appropriate
pedal input.

In terms of the number of seconds that you have to respond, it depends
on the model of helicopter. The Bell 47 is notorious for having gobs of
rotor inertia, meaning that entering autorotation can be a reasonably
relaxed procedure. On the other end of the spectrum, the Robinson R22
(especially with the older blade type) has a very light rotor system, so
you do have to be quick to get the collective down.

Generally speaking, helicopter pilots are more nervous 8^) but just
because the engine quits doesn't mean you're going to die - not by a
long shot. It pays to always have a landing spot picked out - not that
difficult if you maintain a sufficient AGL altitude and try not to fly
over unfavorable (mountainous/hilly/water) terrain more than necessary.

Is that correct? A copter pilot friend of mine told me this years ago,
but it occurred to me that he may have been exaggerating to make himself
look studly. So I thought I'd do a little reality check here. Any
'copter pilots here that can set me straight?

It seems to me that you're looking at helicopter flying with the "glass
half empty" attitude, rather than "half full". I am fixed-wing rated
too, and that's a lot of fun, but there is nothing better than being the
Master and Commander of a helicopter (other than certain adult sports of
course). A well trained, safety-conscious helicopter pilot will probably
live to a ripe old age when he can't see or think well enough to drive
the thing around anymore 8^) .

Part of life is about risk management. I am mighty afeart of dying, but
I'll do almost anything to get some helo stick time (even pay for it).
Frankly, I worry more about a mid-air collision in an airplane (I live
in a very busy airspace - San Jose, CA) than about dying in a helicopter
due to one of the things you mentioned.

Dave Blevins

Actually, I'm not a troll.

You did catch my point, partly. One of the things that happens when you
have strong willed people who do not want to know all the details, they
just want things done, when the details have to be handled, there is no
one to delegate to.

So when these "hi-powered" people got into a fast a/c, they learned
enough to get sign-offs (if they were even required at that time), and
then went out and bent metal.

My thinking is, are we seeing a new version of this kind of behavior? A
very capable machine, in un-experienced hands, with a gotta-get-there
mindset, parachute will save the day...

I'm starting to see why my insurance company has changed the way it
thinks. 2 years ago I could get insurance for a C-210 if I got 10 hours
in type (just over 200 TT then). Now, they want much much more ($$$ and
time) - and I have over 330, and complex time (working on commercial).

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer
killer"?

That implies that the Bonanza was the old "doctor/lawyer killer" and I
can't say I'm really comfortable with that description. Any airplane
will kill the unwary. I think that once the insurance companies catch
on to what the Cirrus is, and it looks like they are getting there in a
hurry, the Cirrus will have an accident record no worse (and maybe
slightly better) than the Bonanza and similar airplanes.

And I don't believe there will EVER be such a thing as a fast, capable,
efficient airplane that will be safe to travel in for the average low
time pilot with average training.

Michael

Dan Luke wrote:

To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?

That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot" article
reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced Aircraft."
These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display, and
an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of them
had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.

The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.

The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate amount of
attention in these groups.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

George,

What is their definition of "crash"? Maybe a lot of the 182 "crashes" have
been
hard landings and such, versus a lot of these Cirrus crashes that seem to be
more along the enroute phase and are fatal?

Pete


"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Dan Luke wrote:

To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?

That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot"
article
reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced
Aircraft."
These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display,
and
an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of
them
had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.

The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.

The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate
amount of
attention in these groups.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

Peter MacPherson wrote:

What is their definition of "crash"?

The NTSB definition of "accident."

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

In article ,
George Patterson wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

To be fair, one must consider that this snazzy new design may be
attracting a lot of new flyers. Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate
number of airplanes to inexperienced pilots?

That doesn't appear to be the case. The latest AOPA Pilot "Safetypilot"
article
reported comparison studies of so-called "Technologically Advanced Aircraft."
These are aircraft with at least a GPS navigator, a multifunction display,
and
an autopilot. Cirrus made 1,171 of these during the study period. Eight of
them
had crashed by press time. The other manufacturer made 1,003 of the other
aircraft during that period. Eight of them had crashed by press time.

The other aircraft? The Cessna 182.

How many fatalities where there? If they were the same, what does that
say about the safety chute?

The only issue seems to be that every Cirrus crash gets an inordinate amount
of
attention in these groups.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I am
sure glad I did.

The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way beyond
the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way through
February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives already this
year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a vengeance.

I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of bugs.
A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in rare,
unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days, months and
even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky never to
recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code execution that
causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in a
real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the probability
of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun begins.

The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious the
programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit that an
occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the software,
not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.

It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the grim
statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them bugs
must be fixed before more people die.

-- City Dweller
Post-solo Student Pilot
(soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)

City Dweller wrote:
I have been following the Cirrus crash statistics closely as I was at one
point considering buying one. I ended up ordering another airplane, and I am
sure glad I did.

The sheer number of destroyed airplanes and dead bodies have gone way beyond
the point where you can use the "too-much-of-an airplane-for-the
typical-buyer" argument. When last December I heard a pilot at our flight
school say "they just keep falling out of the skies" I thought of it as
somewhat of an exaggeration, but not anymore. We are barely half-way through
February, and there's been three fatal crashes taking 5 lives already this
year, and 13 total. Yes sir, they do fall out of the skies with a vengeance.

I am a software engineer, and I deal with crashes every day -- software
crashes. Almost every recently released product crashes when put in
production, no matter how hard the programmers and testers pounded on it
during development and QA phases. Software usually crashes because of bugs.
A bug is by definition an error in the code which only surfaces in rare,
unusual circumstances. You can run the software package for days, months and
even years and never encounter the bug, because you were lucky never to
recreate that rare sequence of events in data flow and code execution that
causes the bug to manifest itself and crash the system. However, in a
real-world production environment, with thousands of users, the probability
of that happening increases greatly, and that's when the fun begins.

The reliability of software depends, among other things, on how serious the
programmer is about testing it, and whether he is willing to admit that an
occasional crash of his system maybe the result of a bug in the software,
not a "hardware problem", a common brush-off among my colleagues.

It seems to me that the general attitude of the Cirrus people is just
that -- "it's not a bug in our system, it's how you use it". Well, the grim
statistics does not back that up anymore. Cirrus is buggy, and them bugs
must be fixed before more people die.

-- City Dweller
Post-solo Student Pilot
(soon-to-be airplane owner, NOT Cirrus)


While there have been 3 fatal accidents this year in Cirrus aircraft,
there have been 16 fatal accidents in the last 10 days according to the
FAA incident reports. Without more analysis then "they are falling out
of the sky" it's very difficult to say what is going on.