Iced up Cirrus crashes

Recently, Morgans posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote

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 disagree, because of the type of accidents we are comparing.

Fatal car accidents usually are near head-on (close to 90 degree), or
another car hits the door, at near head-on in his direction of travel.
Airplanes that hit 90 degrees, or close to it are pretty much *always*
fatal, where sometimes (many times) car head-ons have people walking
away from it.

At 60 mph? I haven't seen 60 mph car crash test information, but the 45
mph tests don't encourage me to bet on anything much faster than that
being "safe" in a typical sedan or SUV.

Cars just don't have to be light. They just build them strong. Few
planes are even tested for crush zones, like cars are. Cars win,
IMHO.

As I said in response to Peter, stronger structures are not necessarily
safer structures. Some planes *are* tested for crush zones, and their
fuselage designs use similar principles to racing cars, where the energy
of the crash is dissipated by tossing off parts, the engine is deflected
down and under the cabin, etc. If we're talking about current technology
and design, then there isn't much point in using the old and/or bad
designs as a standard, IMO.

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"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.

Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

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.

Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
A gear-up landing is not an accident, or not an *uncontrolled* accident?
Besides, it's more like scraping a guard rail on the freeway, no? It's
what happens next that counts.

Using the NTSB definition of "accident", it is not an accident. I'll accept
that it's more like scraping a guard rail (or similar roadside barrier) at
highway speeds. But again, automobiles don't fare any worse in those
situations, and in fact fare better (repairs cost a LOT less).

[...]
Doesn't it depend which car and which airplane, or would you let me pick
them and you be the crash test dummy? ;-)

I would prefer to not do the comparison in your 1959 Sprite. However, the
oldest car I ever drove on a regular basis was a 1971 model, and I certainly
would put that car or any newer one ahead of any four-passenger
single-engine airplane (anything that might be considered a comparable
vehicle). That includes the Cirrus, which as I understand it has very good
crashworthiness, for an airplane.

I think it highly unlikely, in the automobile scenario, that I would suffer
fatal injuries. I think it highly LIKELY, in the aircraft scenario, that I
would suffer fatal injuries.

I don't plan on actually doing the experiment, since in one case I doubt I
would live, and in the other case, there's still the chance I'd die, and I'd
still be assured of some heavy-duty damage to my personal structure that
could take years or decades to recover fully from (assuming I ever recover
at all). Crashing while going 60 mph just isn't that nice an experience, no
matter what.

I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy than,
say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are limits, and
the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more structure. Much of
the clever engineering (as opposed to just beefing things up) still requires
more structure (adding beams to transfer crash forces around the cabin,
rather than through it, for example).

I just don't see how an airplane will ever be on par with respect to
crashworthiness with automobiles. Useful load is too important, and in too
short supply, and weight is too highly correlated with crashworthy
structures, even when adding material (weight) isn't the primary way the
structure has been made crashworthy.

Pete

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current standards would
be a good place to start, for that matter. But frankly, I believe that the
only reason that standards are so strict with airplanes is that people (the
general public) have ALWAYS been terrified of them. Since day one,
airplanes have been freaking people out.

If as many people flew airplanes as drive, there's no way the regulations
would be as strict as they are now. The general public wouldn't put up with
the inconvenience. Conversely, it's entirely possible that one reason
aviation has always been so small an industry is that it's just too many
hurdles for most people (the argument that the Sport certificate will expand
the pilot community is a demonstration of that thought).

Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

There, I'm going to have to disagree. Or at least, you'll have to define
"lose that game" better. The human race gets where it gets because of the
sheer numbers and determination. I have a fairly low opinion of the average
human, but I have a pretty optimistic outlook on where society as a whole
will go. That's because the average human makes very little difference in
where society goes.

Our progress is slow, but there's enough average people to provide the
manpower, and who cares if a few tens of thousands get slaughtered on the
roads each year? Those aren't the important people for the most part
anyway. Yes, there's a bit of collateral damage; no matter how intelligent
you are, you can't protect against every eventuality. But again,
statistically speaking, a person who is applying some thought to their
driving (or flying) is light years ahead of the average person out there,
and will (on average) do way better.

We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason, the
smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only game I
see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the dumb people.
Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty close (and is
already doing so).

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
A gear-up landing is not an accident, or not an *uncontrolled*
accident? Besides, it's more like scraping a guard rail on the
freeway, no? It's what happens next that counts.

Using the NTSB definition of "accident", it is not an accident.

Isn't that determined by how much the repairs cost, and isn't that a
factor of "what happens next"?

[...]
Doesn't it depend which car and which airplane, or would you let me
pick them and you be the crash test dummy? ;-)

I would prefer to not do the comparison in your 1959 Sprite.

I don't know how familiar you might be with the design of that car, or of
similar cars of that era. I can personally attest to the fact that its
monocoque chassis did exactly what Austin Healy said it would do, and as a
result I'm here to talk about it. I don't think it was as much blind luck
as you seem to believe.

[...]
I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy
than, say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are
limits, and the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more
structure. Much of the clever engineering (as opposed to just
beefing things up) still requires more structure (adding beams to
transfer crash forces around the cabin, rather than through it, for
example).

I vaguely recall seeing a program regarding the transfer of technology
from NASA, its subject matter was on using the crash test assembly
developed for space vehicles to test airframe design. The outcome was that
crash safety was able to be significantly improved by redesigning crush
characteristics and firewall installation. This kind of thing can be done
without adding significant weight or additional beams.

[...]
I just don't see how an airplane will ever be on par with respect to
crashworthiness with automobiles. Useful load is too important, and
in too short supply, and weight is too highly correlated with
crashworthy structures, even when adding material (weight) isn't the
primary way the structure has been made crashworthy.

I'm not disagreeing with you about how crashworthy design is typically
approached. However, I'll once again rely on the example of the F1 & Indy
race cars which show that crashworthiness can be improved without
increasing the weight of the vehicle. I'm sure that this hasn't escaped
the notice of aircraft manufacturers. And, I certainly agree that it situ
testing is not something I'll personally pursue, so I'll rely on becoming
a "better human", instead. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How
about BFRs for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type
before one can legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm
not under any illusion that these practices could become a reality
in our society, but I'm sure that safety would improve dramatically
if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current
standards would be a good place to start, for that matter. But
frankly, I believe that the only reason that standards are so strict
with airplanes is that people (the general public) have ALWAYS been
terrified of them. Since day one, airplanes have been freaking
people out.

The point is, whatever the rationale, I don't think that the stricter
standards both for design and operation of aircraft is a Bad Thing.

[...]
We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason,
the smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only
game I see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the
dumb people. Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty
close (and is already doing so).

IMO, that depends on whether you take a micro or macro view of the topic.
The "technology as savior" mindset has pretty far-reaching ramifications.
I appreciate the irony that I'm writing this on the day that the Kyoto
treaty goes into effect, and that the US and other major producers of
polutants aren't taking part in what even its supporters call an
inadequate first step to slow the destruction of our environment. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Hi Peter,

I don't doubt that an airplane can be designed to be more crashworthy
than, say, a C172 and yet still be a viable airplane. But there are
limits, and the bulk of the advancements in automobiles require more
structure. Much of the clever engineering (as opposed to just
beefing things up) still requires more structure (adding beams to
transfer crash forces around the cabin, rather than through it, for
example).

A lot of that additional structure weight used to improve
crashworthiness can be traded for money. Or to put it this way: If
you're prepared to pay the price, a LOT more crashworthiness can be
achieved without to much a weight penalty. Best example I can think of
is the formula one monocoque. It saved Schumacher's but going into a
pile of tires at 200 km/h (125 mph). (Yet this has nothing to do with
normal sports cars! They are designed just the same way as a sedan or
SUV, I don't see any reason to believe they would show any better crash
behavior.)

In a car, the "cost" of 1 kg of weight is roughly 5$. If you can save 1
kg of weight while increasing the cost by not more than that, you do
it, all other things being equal. In an airplane, the value of 1 kg of
weight is up to 1000$.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress