A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Iced up Cirrus crashes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old February 12th 05, 11:53 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old February 12th 05, 11:54 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old February 13th 05, 12:07 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 13th 05, 12:08 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 13th 05, 01:49 AM
Steve.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 13th 05, 01:50 AM
Steve.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Are you an Inspector, Aircraft?

  #107  
Old February 13th 05, 02:39 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 13th 05, 05:23 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 13th 05, 01:28 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 13th 05, 11:29 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.