Safety, yet again...

john smith wrote in
news:jsmith-D8F282.18555023042006@network-065-024-007-
027.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
Judah wrote:

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years
is the Cirrus Parachute,

It is not a CIRRUS parachute, it is a Ballistic Recovery Systems(BRS)
parachute. BRS has parachutes already designed and certified for
different makes/models of certified aircraft.

True, but let's look deeper...

If you want to buy a BRS Parachute System for an Ultralight Aircraft,
thereby not requiring certification or FAA approval, you can buy one
for
as little as $2,200. As you watch the price increase, the price
difference from a 600lb model to an 1800lb model is about equal to
(just
slightly higher than) the increase in weight - about 300%.

Now go from that to the Cessna models, which run $16k and $17k...

2250lbs / 600lbs = 375%, but $15,995 / $2,495 = 640%!
3100lbs / 1050lbs = 295%, but $16,995 / $3,495 = 486%!
3100lbs / 1600lbs = 194%, but $16,995 / $4,095 = 415%!

Basically, the ratios are nearly double for certified systems.

Now why do you think that is? Do you think it's because the systems are
safer when they are put on a Cessna, or do you think it's because of
the
cost of all the red tape required to get the thing certified by the
FAA?


Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
there, and it's obvious why...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
there, and it's obvious why...

One has to wonder if perhaps it would be cheaper to just supply all of the
occupants in the aircraft with a parachute... Quick Google search brough up
prices anywhere from $900-$3000... Maybe for skydivers, the $3000 one might
give them a certain advantage, but I suspect the $900 one would be perfectly
good for getting your butt to the ground with minimal injuries... I'm just
not so sure about whether I can get out of the plane, deploy the chute and
survive from the 300 ft that the BRS chute claims is their minimum
activation altitude...

Jay Honeck wrote:
Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Why would you want to?


Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
not anyone elses.

Since I:

a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
d) Never fly IFR
e) Never fly at night
f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
j) Rarely fly in mountains
k) Fly twice per week, on average
l) Maintain excellent health
m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar

Make sure you add don't fly in marginal weather, near(within 20 miles)
of convective weather.

...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
from my personal risk assessment.

Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
And before ANYONE gets the mistaken notion, no, I'm not advocating scud
running.

I've scud run from New Orleans to Houston before... Flying across the swamps
at a maximum of 500 ft and even had someone cross underneath me... At one
point, was flying a pretty good portion of it at 200 ft... Great view of the
swamps... It's all in what you get used to... Flying around the MSY
airspace, one flies that low over Lake Pontchartrain slightly offshore in
order to skirt the Class-B... Yeah, if you loose and engine, you're going to
go down, but I've been at 10,000 ft and didn't relish the potential for
losing an engine over that terrain either...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Why would you want to?

Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
not anyone elses.

Since I:

a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
d) Never fly IFR
e) Never fly at night
f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
j) Rarely fly in mountains
k) Fly twice per week, on average
l) Maintain excellent health
m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar

...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
from my personal risk assessment.

Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I think that your question proves that you are at least thinking about your
safety and risk management which is good (and more than many do). However I
suggest that it might be more useful to concentrate on our personal risk
management rather than attempting a quantified personal risk assessment.

I think that we will agree with the NTSB that most aircraft accidents are
due to pilot error and I would submit that a large portion of those errors
are due to human factors that (being human) we all have to some degree. In
this case suggesting that you are not likely to commit SPT seems to be
indicative of what in human factors training is an example of the hazardous
thought pattern of 'invulnerability'. It is akin to 'it can't happen to
me', and while it may provide us with some comfort I would suggest that it
is the false 'fat, dumb and happy' feeling that comes just before 'oh oh'
and 'oh ****'.

While I am sure that you learned a great deal from your SNF trip I think you
must agree that sections of your trip story were starting to read like an
accident report. We always say that an accident is usually the result of a
cascading chain of events and our task as pilots is to break the chain as
early as possible. I would submit that in this discussion the way to break
the first link in this chain is to admit to ourselves that we are all
capable of SPT.

Here in Canada human factors training is required as part of the PPL, CPL
and the ATPL ground training and I suspect is also required in the US. In
an earlier post John Ousterhout provided a link to a website that seems to
have some very good material http://www.cyberair.tv/tower/faa/jtm/index.html
Transport Canada publishes two excellent books 'Human Factors for Aviation'
'Basic Handbook TP12863E' and 'Advanced Handbook TP12864E' which are the
texts usually used for ground instruction, there is also an instructors
guide but I do not have the cat#. Unfortunately TC is not as enlightened as
the FAA and AFAIK these manuals are not available on the net as our cheap
government expects us to buy them in paper form. While looking for a link
on the TC site I did stumble on this which may be of some interest
http://www.transportcanada.ca/CivilA...tIII/human.htm
http://www.transportcanada.ca/CivilA...rtIII/menu.htm

I would respectfully suggest that you add human factors to your personal
recurrent training program. Like Pogo said "We have seen the enemy and it
is us."

Happy landings,

"john smith" wrote

Probablly not as much as you might think. The "pleasure" IFR pilot
is/may be more cognizant of his limitations and might be more cautious
about venturing into "hard" IFR.

Yes, most are cautious, but it only takes a few that are not.
Unfortunately, the NTSB reports are full of the few that are not afraid, and
get in way over their heads, and pay for it with their lives.
--
Jim in NC

On 2006-04-24, Matt Barrow wrote:
BTW, for me, IMC means autopilot on or Flight Director at the least. How
many "spam cans", as Jay puts it, have an AP/FD arrangement. If what I get
from my browsing from the accident reports is even fairly accurate, it's
very few.

IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

I don't think it's THAT extreme (however, some kind of lightning
detection in many parts of the world is almost always necessary. A
Strikefinder might not be good enough to thread the needle between
T-storms but at least you know it's there and don't just go blundering
into it; these devices are good for strategic planning).

The thing is a C172 is very stable and extremely easy to fly in IMC.
It's not like trying to fly a Baron with no autopilot and no flight
director in IMC. A _current_ pilot in a C172 who flies IMC often just
shouldn't have a problem - trimmed out, a properly rigged C172 flies
itself. It just isn't hard (unless you start overcontrolling because
you're spatially disoriented - but someone who gets wound up enough to
lose control of a C172 will probably still lose control with a flight
director).

The most intense flights I've had were in low IFR in a Beech Bonanza on
a moderately bumpy day - single pilot (I was the only occupant). I was
very IFR current at the time. I dread to think what it would have been
like to make those flights without plenty of recent IMC flight.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck wrote:
I have found the obstruction databases in both of our moving map GPS's
(AvMap EKP IIIc and Lowrance 2000c) to be remarkable -- almost eerily
-- accurate. I'm sure they're missing some, but, wow, I would NOT want
to be without this remarkable tool.

Even so, just in case - if I found myself in a situation where things
had turned to a scud run, it's a good idea to:

- slow down (gives you more time to see obstructions)
- don't fly on the base of the clouds

This second one sounds a bit counter-intuitive (after all, if you do
that, you'll be the furthest away you can be from the ground, right?) -
but the visibility is often MUCH better if you fly lower. Sparky Imeson
in his mountain flying website recommends flying in the lower third of
the air (divide the space between terror firma and the clouds into
thirds, and fly in the lower third). But I shudder at the idea of scud
running in the mountains.

Incidentally, on the general subject of stupid pilot tricks, I've made
my fair share and had a few flights that read like the start of an
accident report (and I still shudder about some of them - even if I
didn't at the time, and even if so far I've been able to put them all
down to experience having merely got a fright and never bending a plane).
I have around 1200 hours in light planes - anyone
with this amount of flight time who says they have never made a stupid
pilot trick were either with the airlines ab-initio (and probably made
the SPT in the simulator) or are lying, or are so unaware they haven't
even realised that they've made some SPTs and just got lucky (and are
probably even now looking for that grid reference).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Margy Natalie" wrote:


Make sure you add don't fly ...(within 20 miles) of convective weather.

A nice rule, but down here in Thunderstorm Alley it would keep you on the
ground a lot.

http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/thunderstorms.html

Where CBs are an almost daily event 5 months of the year, one has to be a
bit more discriminating about what constitutes a really dangerous storm, or
one's flying will be severely restricted.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Grumman-581 wrote:


I've scud run from New Orleans to Houston before... Flying across the swamps
at a maximum of 500 ft and even had someone cross underneath me... At one
point, was flying a pretty good portion of it at 200 ft...

No cell towers around? =8^(