Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...

Last, it would be interesting to see a plot of accidents against time
for several aircraft types. I suspect that most new types have an
'impulse' of accidents when first introduced, and then level off to
some lower steady state. I suspect this for a few reasons:
Airframe/engine bugs may not be worked out (this is especially true in
homebuilts), and lack of proper training for the aircraft, plus there
will always be a number of pilots who want the latest/greatest thing,
and purchase a plane they shouldn't be flying.


I think those are all excellent points. The only thing we can really
conclude is that (1) It is too early to tell for sure what the long-term
safety record of the Cirrus will be; and (2) It is not a certainty that
Cirrus' safety improvements, including the BRS, will reduce the accident
rate. We just have to wait and see.




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

www.flyimc.com

This reminds of a tv show about car safety and safety in general I saw once...

One expert noted that as we made cars quiter, with airbags, antilock brakes,
better handling, etc etc drivers tended to use up much of those safety gains by
becoming more aggressive drivers...because all those things made a car "feel"
safer and therefore people pushed the envelope farther.....

And he observed that probably the best thing one could do to improve car safety
would be to put a big metal spike sticking outa the steering wheel pointed
towards the driver

A safety device does NO good if you count on it to always work and use it as an
excuse to do things you wouldnt do if you didnt have it in the first place....

take care

Blll

BllFs6,

One expert noted that as we made cars quiter, with airbags, antilock brakes,
better handling, etc etc drivers tended to use up much of those safety gains by
becoming more aggressive drivers...because all those things made a car "feel"
safer and therefore people pushed the envelope farther.....


Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
by the numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
considered controlled military munitions.

Dave Reinhart


Richard Kaplan wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and
pulling
the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

The problem is coming to a happy medium. If the chute were to be pulled in
ANY emergency then the airplane would become impractical because there would
be too many damaged airframes, albeit no injuries. The question is WHERE
does one draw the line at when to pull the chute? There are some agreed-upon
situations but also some grey areas.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
supported
by the numbers.

Reductions in GA accident rates largely came about in the decades before the
1960s/70s vintage airplanes most of us now fly.

NTSB statistics and the general aviation media clearly show that by far the
majority of current GA accidents are due to pilot error and that only a
small portion are due to mechanical failure. Thus it remains to be
demonstrated whether further reduction in the GA accident rate would be best
done via additional equipment such as a BRS parachute vs. pilot training.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
supported
by the numbers.

Reductions in GA accident rates largely came about in the decades before
the
1960s/70s vintage airplanes most of us now fly.

NTSB statistics and the general aviation media clearly show that by far
the
majority of current GA accidents are due to pilot error and that only a
small portion are due to mechanical failure. Thus it remains to be
demonstrated whether further reduction in the GA accident rate would be
best
done via additional equipment such as a BRS parachute vs. pilot training.

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

www.flyimc.com


It would be interesting if someone would determine how many GA fatal
accidents could be saved if all planes were BRS equipped. My guess is it
would be a very small percentage.

Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year the
number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:_HEec.1395.

Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year the
number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.

Actually, TF's peaked in the 1980's at about 52,000 (??) and are now down to
the low 40K's.

Thomas Borchert wrote
Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Technology has indeed made cars safer; it has also made them more
expensive in constant dollars.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote

Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with
technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply
not supported
by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

One sample State of Florida says it is true. Between 1978-1998,
licensed drivers doubled, vehicle miles doubled, small increase in
roads. But total crashes actually decreased about 1/3, with small
increase in total deaths. Complete charts at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/...SourceBook.pdf

Fred F.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:_HEec.1395.

Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year
the
number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.

Actually, TF's peaked in the 1980's at about 52,000 (??) and are now down
to
the low 40K's.


Actually, far as I know 52,000 is 40,000+.