Iced up Cirrus descends by BRS

Darthpup,

Death is good PR?????


I was being ironic in response to the OP, who posted:

plane to "stall". The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a
good PR
story for GA.

Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR
for GA overall.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Here are some stats for the US (from the NTSB database):

New Cessna 182: Fatal accidents 11 (18 fatalities)
Cirrus: Fatal accidents 15 (32 fatalities)

For this to be meaningful one had to know the number of airplanes in
the US (I believe there are similar numbers for new C182 and Cirrus),
or the numbers of hours flown or anything else to make the two groups
comparable. Just from the above numbers, though, Cirri crashed 27%
more with fatal results than new Cessna 182S/T, and 44% more people got
killed.

I do not quite understand why people always compare Cirrus with C182.
The Cirrus is quite a bit more expensive, has a lot more horsepower,
and has a much sleeker wing which much higher wing loading. A more
suitable comparison IMHO to all the above parameters would be Mooneys
or Lancair/Columbias.

Gerd

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,

Stupid pilot tricks have nothing to do at all with the chute. In fact,
GA pilots have managed to get themselves killed in a wide range of
stupid tricks since 1905 or so, thank you very much. Blaming the chute
in any way is a red herring.

Compare the accident stats of new Cessna 182 (and only the new ones)
with those of the Cirrus, like some publicatin recently did. They are
very similar. That possibly tells us something about what kind of pilot
can afford a new plane. It also tells us there is not really an issue
with the Cirrus, apart from pilot factors.

It also tells you that the chute is providing no benefit with respect to
the accident rate.

Matt

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for
GA overall.

Yep, 3 dead would have been much better PR for GA. And the plane would
probably have shedded the ice while spinning through 5000, too. Great!

What's wrong with you guys?

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
the BRS crutch.

"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
thrown back at you.

moo

"Matt Whiting" wrote in
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,

Stupid pilot tricks have nothing to do at all with the chute. In fact, GA
pilots have managed to get themselves killed in a wide range of stupid
tricks since 1905 or so, thank you very much. Blaming the chute in any
way is a red herring. Compare the accident stats of new Cessna 182 (and
only the new ones) with those of the Cirrus, like some publicatin
recently did. They are very similar. That possibly tells us something
about what kind of pilot can afford a new plane. It also tells us there
is not really an issue with the Cirrus, apart from pilot factors.

It also tells you that the chute is providing no benefit with respect to
the accident rate.

Accident rate or injury rate? And, I think it's clear that few people here
believe that it helps much in the most typical types of accidents.

moo

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
k.net...
The bigger issue is whether pilots are taking risks with Cirrus planes
that they wouldn't otherwise take, because they know they have a BRS chute
available.

Mike Schumann

My take on the situation is that rational pilots will pop the chute in
situations where they *might* survive anyway, but where there is some chance
of getting killed. This means that more Cirrus will land under chute than
would have crashed otherwise.

For instance, he may work himself into a situation where he realizes that he
has an "X" percentage chance of killing himself, and a (100% -X%) of making
it to the ground using conventional means (i.e. no accident). At some
probability of killing himself, he's gonna pop the chute.

Let's say that chance is 10%, and his survival is guaranteed if he pops the
chute. So he pops the chute, wastes an airplane, and ends up in the papers.

Without the BRS, there was a 1 in 10 chance that he was going to make the
papers anyway and a 9 in 10 chance that he was just going to have a good
story to tell.

Assuming that every Cirrus pilot pops the chute at the 10% chance of a fatal
situation, we have 10 Cirri under chute and no fatalities. In other makes,
you'd have 9 examples of no story at all and one fatal crash.

"Happy Dog" wrote:
What's wrong with you guys?

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
the BRS crutch.

"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
thrown back at you.

I don't have to. I am making a comment about the BRS so the
discussion is about the BRS, not ADS-B, GPS, Cheap inertials, etc.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Happy Dog" wrote:
What's wrong with you guys?

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
the BRS crutch.

"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
thrown back at you.

I don't have to. I am making a comment about the BRS so the
discussion is about the BRS, not ADS-B, GPS, Cheap inertials, etc.

You are making an unjustified comment about the BRS. And I'm not surprised
that you don't even try to put some logic behind it. If you did, you'd find
that you're describing other innovations that nobody thinks of as crutches.
I suggest you use your superior judgment skills here and avoid a debate on
this.

moo

Gwengler,

Just from the above numbers,


They are meaningless, as you well know. The least you'd have to factor
in is fleet size. You would probably want to come up with a reasonable
estimate of hours flown, as is done regularly by aviation publication
safety reviews, and as was done in this case.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

as is done regularly by aviation publication safety reviews, and as was done in this case

Can you please quote the aviation publication safety review in "this
case"?

Gerd