A thought on BRS

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:29:15 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
.. .
...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?

Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

Well put. Love it!

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

:-)

Nailhitter




Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

Vaughn wrote:

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...

...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes?

This might make me safer, as I would be less inclined to fly in
contests, especially large ones.

And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes.

Without a transponder, I wouldn't fly in the Minden area. It does give
me a small improvement in safety where I normally fly, and more so in
the Southern California area. So, maybe the transponder, overall, has me
just as safe as I would be without one.

And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost.

Before GPS, I used higher altitude margins, because I couldn't be sure
of where I was. I suspect I over-compensated, so I think most of the
time I did have higher margins. Once in a while, I probably misjudged
badly enough, my margins were lower than they are with a GPS. So,
perhaps a wash with respective to safety.

Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence.

We'd fly slower, but this probably wouldn't help, as our accidents are
rarely breakups in turbulence.

As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.

Same as above: we'd just fly slower, so not likely to help.

Here's another one: make everyone fly without hull insurance. Pilots
would be more careful when they flew if they knew any damage came
entirely out of their wallet. The same for caring for the glider on the
ground: more gliders would be put away in the trailer instead of tied
out, and canopies would be protected better.

With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

I know Vaughn wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but it does illustrate the
compensation that happens whenever there is a change in equipment.
People are always making trade-offs between safety and functionality,
but I think they usually take a middle path: a bit more safety and a bit
more functionality. Problems arise if they think more safety has been
provided than is actually the case.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Pretty interesting that rescue-the-aircraft parachutes have been
considered basic-responsibility common sense in the ultralight
community, while the presumptively far more properly trained pilots of
presumptively far more airworthy certificated aircraft consider them
controversial and possibly dangerous.

To me, the objections to these systems keeps reminding me of the World
War I debate about allowing pilots to carry parachutes. They don't
always work, you will have people taking unnecessary risks because
they know they have them, people will bail out of damaged but landable
aircraft, and anyway real men don't need that sort of thing. Maybe
the powers that prohibited parachutes back then were onto something!

Mind you, I'll never forget the look on a hang glider pilot's face
when her sailplane-ride pilot explained that a) you have to bail out
of the aircraft to use the parachute and b) there are no parachutes
anyway!

Just to nitpick with John Cochrane, I don't know that Pelzman actually
proved that spikes in the dashboard lower the accident rate (this
would require doing the experiment, which I didn't think he had done),
although it seems likely they would! I think his point was that the
primary effect of safety equipment in cars is to increase speeds:
essentially, drivers limit their speed to keep their fatality risk to
an acceptable level, so increase the safety equipment and they can
increase their speed while keeping the same or lower fatality risk.
Their priorities are correct: limit risk first, THEN drive as fast as
possible. What is counter-intuitive is that with those priorities,
safety equipment will alter the speed, not the safety. Speed is not
the issue in aircraft, but there is indeed a similar question: when
the safety margins are improved, will light aircraft travelers consume
the benefit as higher safety margins or as increased utility of the
aircraft? Even if it's the latter, they still gain from having the
BRS on board, and all that remains is to determine whether it's worth
the cost.