Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

Bill Denton wrote:

There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots who
either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they know
more than the people who designed and built the plane.

Maybe, but the time-honored solution to that type of problem is to quit building or
buying planes like that.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Unfortunately, if we followed your solution, everyone would still be lying
down on the wing to pilot a fabric-covered canard that needed a rail to take
off.

Almost every technological advance requires additional training, resulting
in an upgrade in skills and mindset. Consider the transition from props to
jets. I doubt if many pilots (other than the test pilots) made the
transition without additional training.

The Cirrus is not necessarily a dangerous airplane; it is a different
airplane, that looks a lot like many other GA airplanes. Which it isn't. Too
many pilots think they can just skim the POH and go. I read an article last
night that indicated that by offering additional training, Cirrus has been
able to make major inroads in it's accident problems.

Now, the inevitable analogy:

When antilock brake systems for automobiles first began achieving widespread
market penetration, the number of accidents involving police cars increased
dramatically. There were three primary reasons for this:

Exposure - Police officers drive a lot, and much of it is stop and go
driving.

Conditions - Police officers frequently drive at high speeds, which require
"hard stops". And they frequently drive on roads in less than optimal
conditions (maintenance, weather, etc.).

Training - Police officers were trained to "pump" the brakes, a technique
that causes ABS to work with even less efficiency than conventional brakes.

So, police departments implemented re-training programs that taught the
officers both to apply steady pressure to the brake pedal, and helped them
break their old pattern of pumping the brakes.

The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...




"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Bill Denton wrote:

There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots
who
either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they
know
more than the people who designed and built the plane.

Maybe, but the time-honored solution to that type of problem is to quit
building or
buying planes like that.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band
to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come
home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"Bill Denton" wrote
Now, the inevitable analogy:

When antilock brake systems for automobiles first began achieving widespread
market penetration, the number of accidents involving police cars increased
dramatically. There were three primary reasons for this:

Exposure - Police officers drive a lot, and much of it is stop and go
driving.

Conditions - Police officers frequently drive at high speeds, which require
"hard stops". And they frequently drive on roads in less than optimal
conditions (maintenance, weather, etc.).

Training - Police officers were trained to "pump" the brakes, a technique
that causes ABS to work with even less efficiency than conventional brakes.

So, police departments implemented re-training programs that taught the
officers both to apply steady pressure to the brake pedal, and helped them
break their old pattern of pumping the brakes.

The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

Yes, it's a great analogy. A supposed safety advance was introduced
into the cars. After retraining, the result was almost as safe (not
safer) as what it replaced, and more expensive to boot. Without
retraining, it was a lot more dangerous. What was the advantage
again?

And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

Michael

" "Bill Denton" wrote
And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining,
but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...


The Cirrus was touted to be safer than all the other airplanes. Now we find
out it is 300% more lethal than the Cessna 182S.

Howdy!

In article ,
Michael wrote:
"Bill Denton" wrote

[snip ABS and police]

The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

Yes, it's a great analogy. A supposed safety advance was introduced
into the cars. After retraining, the result was almost as safe (not
safer) as what it replaced, and more expensive to boot. Without
retraining, it was a lot more dangerous. What was the advantage
again?

Would you care to cite some independent corroboration for the columny you
offer? What is "less safe" about ABS?

Bill Denton spoke of how it caused *police officers* problems, but not
the general driving public.

Or are you just opposed to any safety advance?

And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

....no more dangerous than any other light single...or are you just picking
out a phrase to hilight it with (implied) scare quotes? Bad troll. No
biscuit.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

(Michael Houghton) wrote
Bill Denton spoke of how it caused *police officers* problems, but not
the general driving public.

Police officers have pretty much the worst accident records of anyone.
Of course no small part of it is the fact that they have a legitimate
reason to drive agressively (chasing down murderers) whereas most
drivers don't. Still, if there is a problem, that's where it's going
to show up first.

It took insurance companies years to decide that ABS didn't warrant a
discount. It just looked so good on paper. This was a good early
indication.

Or are you just opposed to any safety advance?

Ah, that must be it. I must be anti-safety.

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

...no more dangerous than any other light single...

Yes it is more dangerous than MOST other light singles. It has over
THREE TIMES the fatality rate of the new C-182's - and the C-182's are
basically an old, warmed-over design. The Cirrus is supposedly
designed for safety.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

Do you know why/how AOPA stated in today's Epilot newletter that the Cirrus
is as safe as the 172/182? The recent stats from Aviation Safety (BEFORE
the recent fatal accident this week) showed it clearly had a worse safety
record.

Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
correct agenda?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:

Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
correct agenda?

Perhaps the blurb for the newsletter was written before the recent accidents?

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Perhaps the blurb for the newsletter was written before the recent
accidents?


No, the article was ABOUT this week's fatal SC accident.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

We're they quoting accidents or fatal accidents? That could make a difference.

Dave Reinhart


Richard Kaplan wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

Do you know why/how AOPA stated in today's Epilot newletter that the Cirrus
is as safe as the 172/182? The recent stats from Aviation Safety (BEFORE
the recent fatal accident this week) showed it clearly had a worse safety
record.

Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
correct agenda?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com