![]() |
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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ron Garret wrote: I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid, like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or enough fuel. Unfortunately, the NTSB reports don't break the statistics down into stupid and non-stupid. Neither do the people that track auto accidents. You can't eliminate the auto accidents caused by people doing something stupid, so don't omit the stupid aviation accidents either. George Patterson He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an adequate understanding of truth and falsehood. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Matt Barrow wrote: How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's? For the last few years, production figures have been about the same for both birds. George Patterson He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an adequate understanding of truth and falsehood. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net... Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers using the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software is developed. Yes, and we all know that having a government-issued license is such a strong indicator of quality. Non-sequitur. Licensing is what happens when an industry matures and transitions from an entrepreneurial to a guild mindset. It's also what happens, hopefully, when the software industry matures from bedroom hackers with very light complexity to CMM processes and high levels of complexity. Did John Augustus Roebling have a license? Nope and neither did the guys who designed and built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge IIRC. ANd neither did the guys who built the pyramids. Having led many software projects, I will tell you that the "engineers" are usually the ones most incensed by taking shortcuts in quality. The fact is that the market has traditionally rewarded those who got to market first with the most features rather than those who made the least buggy software. If Windows crashs while surfing the net, it's annoying. When a building or a bridge collapses, or an ariplane crashes due to mechanical failure, people die. Think of the WTC and how long the towers stood after taking hits from fuel laden airplanes. It costs a *lot* to build very high-quality software. If the market would tolerate buildings that collapsed 10% of the time but cost 90% less to build, we'd see buildings falling down as often as Windows crashes. And the long range costs of software done haphazzardly is...what? -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow, CE Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "George Patterson" wrote in message ... Matt Barrow wrote: How many SR20/22's in the inventory and how many 182's? For the last few years, production figures have been about the same for both birds. Are those statistics only counting recent production aircraft? -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok, I kinda helped open this box. So let me address a few things so
that interested parties might have some understanding. Otherwise, skip to the end ("=====") of this posting for some Cirrus related questions. In the "mainframe" world I'm from, software vendors know they can't get away with disclaimers that make them exempt from civil suit when their software doesn't work for the intended purpose. Most all system level software in the mainframe arena is "certified" to run on a certain level of an O/S, has lots of regression tests (suites), and validation testing. Fail a test, you don't make the GA date (that's General Availability). And before GA there is generally at least one round of "field" or Beta testing -- where there are specific environmental considerations done in accepting entities into the tests. Move up from there to the applications software and things may not be done so rigorously. But one application can't get into conflict with another such that the computer system is unstable. If that happens, then the O/S vendor will be very interested in how an application made the system unstable. This type of programming does not accept "memory leaks" that force you into IPLing (that's a reboot to you PC, MAC, and *nix types). Your system "leaks" memory and when you hit the max allowed your address space, the O/S begins the kill process. Only if you have good error recovery will you avoid MEMTERM. [I guess for those of you in computers you now know I do "MVS" stuff.] This is why mainframes run and run and run. This is why mainframe software costs so much and takes so long to develop. It is done to much higher standards than most PC software is written. This is why I'm a bit sensitive to the Software Engineer title - given too easily to people who are clueless as to architectures and rationales. ========= Now back to A/C. What we have is a change in production matterial. This included a change in designs from other similarly grouped A/C. So now we have a very slick A/C with glass avionics. Does this require a new kind of thinking in training? Or, is the standard of a ballistic parachute causing people to make bad decisions? If I know that I have an emergency handle I can pull to magically get me out of trouble, will I fly the A/C beyond my abilities? Will this thinking put me into the position of thinking that even if I get disoriented, and have an unusual attitude, that I can pull the handle and I'm saved? If I don't recognize that I'm gonna pass the Vne, and I do pass it and then pull the magic handle, is this what causes the plane to break into pieces? I'm asking these questions because I fly a 180HP 4 place plane that does not have much for anti-icing. Were I to move to a Cirrus with the weaping wing and parachute and speed and... would I start flying into stuff I have no business flying into? I know that I've gotten into ice once and that was after planning so that my IFR climbout would not take me through ice. So back to the question I asked earlier, at this time, has Cirrus produced the new lawyer/doctor killer? Will the insurance companies demand what is in effect a type rating when moving from steam gauges to glass? Will they also demand the same for moving to composite type A/C? Will this be a bad thing, or will it force people to think more about what they are attempting to do with a nice capable machine? Later, Steve.T PP ASEL/Instrument |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Are you an Inspector, Aircraft?
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
George Patterson wrote: Ron Garret wrote: I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid, like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or enough fuel. Unfortunately, the NTSB reports don't break the statistics down into stupid and non-stupid. Neither do the people that track auto accidents. You can't eliminate the auto accidents caused by people doing something stupid, so don't omit the stupid aviation accidents either. OK, I concede the point. Flying is more dangerous than driving. :-( rg |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I still have to wonder, though, if this would still be the case if you
ignored accidents that were caused by the pilot doing something stupid, like launching into hideous weather without adequate preparation or enough fuel. It doesn't matter. "Doing something stupid" is not something you can avoid. You =will= do something stupid in an airplane. At the time you won't think it's that stupid, you'll have good reasons for doing it, you'll think you are merely applying your superior skill and superior equipment to a situation that is within your capabilities. It =will= happen. If you are unlucky, the rest of us will put you in the list of pilots who did something stupid, that none of =us= would do. If you are lucky, you'll merely think you're a better pilot. You might even have =become= a better pilot if you realize that what you did was not as clever as you thought it would be. I'd bet that most of the pilots that did something stupid did not at the time think they were doing something stupid. If you want to eliminate something of the "stupid" stuff.... eliminate the accidents caused by pilots who did something that =they= thought, =at=the=time=, was stupid. But that won't eliminate much. ![]() Jose |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Matt Barrow wrote: Are those statistics only counting recent production aircraft? Yes. The last thousand or so aircraft from each manufacturer. George Patterson He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an adequate understanding of truth and falsehood. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
can you tell if a plane's iced up by looking at it? | Tune2828 | Piloting | 8 | December 1st 04 07:27 PM |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | C J Campbell | Piloting | 122 | May 10th 04 11:30 PM |
Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 73 | May 1st 04 04:35 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |