will this fly?

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to

evaluate

and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt


OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

Dan Thompson wrote:
Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the statistics
are insufficient to support it.

I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on your
plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear seat
belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more safe,
then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better be
safe and not buckle up."

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.


Matt

When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to

evaluate

and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt


OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:
When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)


Matt

I don't know. That is why I have an airplane in the first place!

Mike
MU-2

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the
same
time..

And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)


Matt

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.


For data of a related sort, look at how many pilots rely on GPS, and take
flights they wouldn't otherwise (because of lack of preparation). (put another
way, with GPS some people are more inclined to just get up and go, but without
they will do more planning)

GPS has given pilots a more cavalier attitude towards flight planning and
pilotage (see the planning thread), I would be VERY surprised if it did not
turn out that the chute gave pilots a more cavalier attitude towards weather
and other conditions, while at the same time admitting to the ranks people who
shouldn't even =be= pilots.

One thing to remember, coming down on a TKS chute is a VERY UNDESIRABLE
OUTCOME. I don't think people fully comprehend this.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners
than I do.



"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
are insufficient to support it.

I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on
your
plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear
seat
belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more
safe,
then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
be
safe and not buckle up."

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.


Matt

Dan, et. al,

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
in states that don't have helmet laws*.

You may hang around with the best pilots in the country; what of it? Every
year we have tens if not hundreds of fuel starvation accidents, which are
nearly 100% preventable with even a pinch of common sense. My contention is
that you should always assume the worst when it comes to human nature.

On an individual level, there is no question that a pilot with a Cirrus has
the potential to enjoy safer flying than one in a 172. However, I think
logic well supports my position that the perceived safety will tempt some
pilots into situations they don't belong in, possibly resulting in higher
accident rates. Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.

* I haven't researched this issue carefully enough to say this is totally
conclusive, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
.com...
"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
owners
than I do.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help.

Sounds a lot like the French argument during WWI to the effect that allowing
pilots to wear parachutes would cause them to be more cowardly.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

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



Sounds a lot like the French argument during WWI to the effect that
allowing
pilots to wear parachutes would cause them to be more cowardly.


That's silly! The French couldn't be more cowardly.