Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

On Jul 1, 10:34*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.

As usual Mx talks with NO knowledge of flying a REAL airplane hence
his trolling continues. He is absolutely clueless.

I have FAR exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate (have a video of it on my
You Tube channel) practicing emergency descents in a Sundowner. I am
here to talk about it and it was completely controlled. Things happen
real fast and not for the faint of heart.

My research before trying 90 degree bank in a non acro plane can be
found at http://discussions.flightaware.com/v...?p=87495#87495

My reaction after doing this emergency descent manuever can be found
at http://discussions.flightaware.com/v...?p=87850#87850

The video itself can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo

No access to You Tube where I am at, sooooo going on memory, I
provided FARS references on legality of doing this manuevar as acro is
not defined by a degree of bank, but requirements for parachutes when
WITH passengers (I was solo - no parachute required) is defined by
degrees of bank.

On Jul 1, 12:16*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:

The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

Cheers

Nope, MX doesn't know how to slip.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Bottom line appears to be that the Young Eagles program probably doesn't
accomplish anything useful re increasing pilot population. People who want
to be pilots will do what they can to reach that goal - the rest presumably
just enjoy the chance for a free airplane ride.

I've seen figures on multiple occasions that indicate that the largest group
of private pilots (i.e., not flying as a career) consists of men in their late
forties.

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:34*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by
actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.

As usual Mx talks with NO knowledge of flying a REAL airplane hence
his trolling continues. He is absolutely clueless.

I have FAR exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate (have a video of it on my
You Tube channel) practicing emergency descents in a Sundowner. I am
here to talk about it and it was completely controlled. Things happen
real fast and not for the faint of heart.

That's what I figured....

Some quick calculations show that 1700fpm at 133kts is a roughly 8:1
glide ratio. It should not be particularly hard to create more than
1/8th of your weight in drag at that kind of speed in a Cirrus.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jun 30, 10:59*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web
page, statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who
are experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated
to the manufacturer's aircraft.

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

*Especially when I see statements like
"... the ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of
attitude that can cause accidents. The author seems to further believe
that CAPS is a fix for all sorts of situations, such as pilot
disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I would agree with him and disagree with you that CAPS is one possible
resolution to pilot disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.
He doesn't say use of CAPS is certain to succeed in either case - merely
that timely deployment has a good chance of working.

As to low altitude loss of control: consider a stall/spin on a turn from
base to final at 500 ft. Assuming the aircraft immediately (and
unrealistically) accelerated to 5000 ft/min (~84 ft/sec) and the
deployment had to occur above 200 ft AGL to succeed, the pilot or
passenger would have about 3.5 seconds to act. Not much but certainly
plausible. But the average descent rate is likely to be half that or
less, so more like 7 seconds to react.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who
believe that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their
navigation issues forever.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

There is some data that suggests there are more fatalities in a Cirrus
than a 172 when normalized for exposure (flight hours and the like)
although the more directly competing airplane in terms of performance
might be a 182 or a complex single. I have not seen data about that.
The CAPS manufacture cites the deployed device will provide a descent
rate of about 1600 fpm. Some point out a suitably configured sel might
go down at 800 fpm, but the different that might be more important is
the SEL will be flying at 50 or 70 MPH and that represents some energy
that has to be turned to heat.

Speaking of heat, someone may be able to reduce it and add light if
they have data on serious accidents among airplanes with similar
mission profiles -- my guess is the Cirrus mission might be more
nearly like an complex SEL than a 172.

"a" wrote in message
...

-----massive clip because my reader didn't properly update the
quotes----------

There is some data that suggests there are more fatalities in a Cirrus
than a 172 when normalized for exposure (flight hours and the like)
although the more directly competing airplane in terms of performance
might be a 182 or a complex single. I have not seen data about that.
The CAPS manufacture cites the deployed device will provide a descent
rate of about 1600 fpm. Some point out a suitably configured sel might
go down at 800 fpm, but the different that might be more important is
the SEL will be flying at 50 or 70 MPH and that represents some energy
that has to be turned to heat.

Speaking of heat, someone may be able to reduce it and add light if
they have data on serious accidents among airplanes with similar
mission profiles -- my guess is the Cirrus mission might be more
nearly like an complex SEL than a 172.

-----------begin new post-----------

IIRC, this subject came up and one of the contributors, possibly Ron,
provided some data which he had made a considerable effort to filter in a
usefull and not predjudicial way--and the difference in accident rates were
not sufficiently great, between the Cirrus and other high performance
singles, to be at all compelling--especially considering the small number of
accidents in any type of aircraft during a given period.

OTOH, my personal opinion is that a lot of it really comes down to the idea
of pilots reducing themselves to passengers, as though in the back of one of
those giant airline mailing tubes, simply riding along to the crash site
after irrevocably turning control over to a mechanical device--in this case,
the ballistic parachute. That's probably an acceptable concept for
bureaucrats and desktop simmers; but seems to richly deserve a little "push
back" from current and former fliers--from solo students to ATPs.
Personally, I thnk I'd rather be out under a "real" parachute and not forced
to crash flat on my fanny in the damned airplane...

Just my $0.02
Peter

Flaps_50! writes:

The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

The 1700-fpm is _with the parachute deployed_, and thus has nothing to do with
normal flight.

writes:

I have FAR exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate (have a video of it on my
You Tube channel) practicing emergency descents in a Sundowner. I am
here to talk about it and it was completely controlled.

With a parachute deployed?

writes:

And after all your babble about "angry young men" in these groups...

I don't see any correlation.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Flaps_50! writes:

The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

The 1700-fpm is _with the parachute deployed_, and thus has nothing to do with
normal flight.

You said:

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

In short, you directly said that a competent pilot flying the aircraft
could not come anywhere close to 1700fpm. This is blatantly wrong.

Go on, dodge, I know it's all you can do.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon