Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

On Jun 30, 10:59*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web
page, statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who
are experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated
to the manufacturer's aircraft.

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

*Especially when I see statements like
"... the ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of
attitude that can cause accidents. The author seems to further believe
that CAPS is a fix for all sorts of situations, such as pilot
disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I would agree with him and disagree with you that CAPS is one possible
resolution to pilot disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.
He doesn't say use of CAPS is certain to succeed in either case - merely
that timely deployment has a good chance of working.

As to low altitude loss of control: consider a stall/spin on a turn from
base to final at 500 ft. Assuming the aircraft immediately (and
unrealistically) accelerated to 5000 ft/min (~84 ft/sec) and the
deployment had to occur above 200 ft AGL to succeed, the pilot or
passenger would have about 3.5 seconds to act. Not much but certainly
plausible. But the average descent rate is likely to be half that or
less, so more like 7 seconds to react.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who
believe that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their
navigation issues forever.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

There is some data that suggests there are more fatalities in a Cirrus
than a 172 when normalized for exposure (flight hours and the like)
although the more directly competing airplane in terms of performance
might be a 182 or a complex single. I have not seen data about that.
The CAPS manufacture cites the deployed device will provide a descent
rate of about 1600 fpm. Some point out a suitably configured sel might
go down at 800 fpm, but the different that might be more important is
the SEL will be flying at 50 or 70 MPH and that represents some energy
that has to be turned to heat.

Speaking of heat, someone may be able to reduce it and add light if
they have data on serious accidents among airplanes with similar
mission profiles -- my guess is the Cirrus mission might be more
nearly like an complex SEL than a 172.

"a" wrote in message
...

-----massive clip because my reader didn't properly update the
quotes----------

There is some data that suggests there are more fatalities in a Cirrus
than a 172 when normalized for exposure (flight hours and the like)
although the more directly competing airplane in terms of performance
might be a 182 or a complex single. I have not seen data about that.
The CAPS manufacture cites the deployed device will provide a descent
rate of about 1600 fpm. Some point out a suitably configured sel might
go down at 800 fpm, but the different that might be more important is
the SEL will be flying at 50 or 70 MPH and that represents some energy
that has to be turned to heat.

Speaking of heat, someone may be able to reduce it and add light if
they have data on serious accidents among airplanes with similar
mission profiles -- my guess is the Cirrus mission might be more
nearly like an complex SEL than a 172.

-----------begin new post-----------

IIRC, this subject came up and one of the contributors, possibly Ron,
provided some data which he had made a considerable effort to filter in a
usefull and not predjudicial way--and the difference in accident rates were
not sufficiently great, between the Cirrus and other high performance
singles, to be at all compelling--especially considering the small number of
accidents in any type of aircraft during a given period.

OTOH, my personal opinion is that a lot of it really comes down to the idea
of pilots reducing themselves to passengers, as though in the back of one of
those giant airline mailing tubes, simply riding along to the crash site
after irrevocably turning control over to a mechanical device--in this case,
the ballistic parachute. That's probably an acceptable concept for
bureaucrats and desktop simmers; but seems to richly deserve a little "push
back" from current and former fliers--from solo students to ATPs.
Personally, I thnk I'd rather be out under a "real" parachute and not forced
to crash flat on my fanny in the damned airplane...

Just my $0.02
Peter