will this fly?

Robert Henry wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
om...


ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.


While the rest of the post was extremely well constructed, and strikingly
similar to some thoughts I had on the issue (I had images of the ice laden
tangled chute having a terminal velocity exceeding that of the aircraft that
had the effect of pulling the plane tail first into the ground), I have to
point out one nuance of difference on the point quoted.

My experience with ABS is that most people are neither TRAINED properly, nor
do they take the time to understand how it works, to use ABS correctly (when
needed and when not). The situation concerning insurance discounts is not a
function of more aggressive driving, imho. I would further argue that this
is currently the issue facing the chute on the Cirrus - there is no way
(AFAIK) to train on the proper use of the system, both in terms of function
and in the decisionmaking process, that fully demonstrates the experience of
what will occur leading up to deployment and through the outcome to its
inevitable conclusion.

Most drivers aren't trained properly period!


Just as it takes a considerably different mindset for a panicked driver with
ABS to be prepared to steer around an obstruction during an event that
requires maximum braking, and actually do it, it takes a considerably
different mindset for a pilot to abdicate control of the aircraft when all
of the training is oriented toward maintaining and recovering control of the
aircraft. That mindset is a function of training, and until there is a
simulator that can emulate the experience and provide that training, I think
there will be accidents like the one in NY in which the question cannot be
conclusively answered about whether or not the pilot activated the CAPS
system. Of course, it would be nice if the design of the activation system
were able to provide an indication that deployment was attempted.

Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
around obstacles whether you have ABS or not. The only difference with
ABS is that you don't need to think about modulating the brakes in
addition to thinking about steering.


That said, I will ONLY buy vehicles with ABS, and I really like the Cirrus.

I'd rather have a non ABS vehicle, but they are very hard to find. I
still have both and much prefer my non ABS vehicle, especially in the
snow. I can stop much faster without ABS. On dry pavement, you can
also stop faster if you are proficient at threshold braking. However,
very few people are so I don't doubt that the average driver will stop
faster in an ABS equipped car. Threshold braking takes a lot more skill
than mashing the peddle with all your might! The proficient driver will
stop about as fast on dry pavement and faster on loose surfaces such as
sand and snow. The only advantage I can think of for ABS that can't be
duplicated by driver skill is having one side of the car on pavement and
the other on ice. ABS can modulate the brakes individually on each
wheel. No driver can do that.

On soft surfaces, locked wheels allow you to stop faster, but at the
loss of steering control. However, if all I need to do is stop, then
I'd much rather have the option to lock the wheels. If I need to steer
I can threshold brake and modulate the brakes myself. My only real
close call in the winter was with my new ABS equipped minivan. Didn't
have the option to steer around as the windrows of plowed snow blocked
the berm, and I couldn't lock the wheels to stop faster. I've driven in
the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
my non ABS vehicle. Luckily, I was going slow enough to stop anyway,
but the ABS raised my blood pressure considerably! It felt as though I
had no brakes at all. With locked wheels, as the snow piles up in front
of the tires, the braking force continually increases.

I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
had the opportunity to fly one yet though...


Matt

Robert Henry wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dan Thompson wrote:
They initially
gave discounts for cars so equipped ... until they found that the loss
rate was actually higher for ABS equipped cars. A study determined that
the issue was that drivers were driving more aggressively in poor
weather as they thought the ABS would save them.


I still contend the root cause here is the misinformation created from a
lack of proper training. In addition, the ABS may have been able to effect a
different outcome, even despite the reckless behavior, if the driver
actually knew how to use it. To me, drivers treat ABS like airbags: 'I know
I have it, but I don't need to know how to use it because it functions on
its own for my safety.'

That may well be the case. However, it still supports the point that
often additional safety equipment doesn't have the desired effect for a
variety of reasons that can't always be anticipatd.


As such, perhaps we should conclude that it's not the ABS or the parachute,
it's the a priori behavior that creates the situation in the first place
(including proper training in addition to good, up-to-the-moment ADM) that
deserves the attention.

I think that was the basis of the argument. I don't think anyone said
that the parachute wouldn't work as advertised, the argument was that
the behavior of the pilot might increase the chances of needing the
chute or of getting into situations where it can't help.

I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing
the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight.


Matt

Dashi wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dan Thompson wrote:

"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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.


If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
documents then?

These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
it out yourself.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed...6/pr121096.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html

This one addresses a theory for the cause. As with all theories, there
are those who question it, but it seems to be pretty well supported by
the evidence.

http://www.drivers.com/article/164/


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Most drivers aren't trained properly period!

Absolutely true. Back before the summer, I had the opportunity to "drive
IFR" through the Cumberland Gap. Road signs were only readable from within
30-50 feet. I was really wishing for a localiser for the lanes and off
ramps. Cars streamed by me at 70-75. I maintained 50 just to keep from
being rear ended. The very next weekend was Memorial Day Weekend; the
weather persisted, and 100 vehicles were wrecked up there and the road was
closed for 24 hours.


Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
around obstacles whether you have ABS or not.

Simply because steering is impossible if the tires are locked up. The
studies also show most human beings are unable to modulate the brakes
effectively overall. What I think happens is that in no-ABS cars, the
reaction times and stopping distances are enough to overcome the need to
steer - which doesn't matter, because it's nearly impossible unless stopping
distance is sacrificed by the release of brake pressure. Then and only then
is steering possible. In ABS vehicles, the car will always sacrfice distance
for controllability. I submit that if the driver hasn't figured that out,
the mindset is not correct for the equipment.

I've driven in
the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
my non ABS vehicle.

Going back to my original point, you have much training in using non-ABS
equipped vehicles. My training was in both, and I prefer the ABS - maybe it
was easier to learn, or I didn't have to untrain all the non-ABS experience.
I have been in similar situations in both kinds of cars and I can tell you
the outcome was always better in the ABS equipped vehicle - just luck,
maybe..., but no exaggeration. Of course, I don't change my driving style
based upon the braking equipment either.

I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
had the opportunity to fly one yet though...

I have about 5 hours in an SR-22. All my training was in Cessnas. It was no
transition despite sidestick, low-wing, and high performance. It came
together like bread and butter. Highly recommended. And I didn't change my
flying style based upon the chute or anything else in the airplane. Well, I
didn't have to have anything like a chart or a checklist on my lap for the
entire flight -but they were close at hand.

Bob

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I think that was the basis of the argument. I don't think anyone said
that the parachute wouldn't work as advertised, the argument was that
the behavior of the pilot might increase the chances of needing the
chute or of getting into situations where it can't help.

Yes, the assertion is also on the table that the chute might not work in
icing conditions, and that it might not have worked in the NY accident. To
your point, we'll also never really know if in addition to stalls they
decided to attempt, or inadvertently entered, a spin.


I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing
the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight.

Agreed.

Bob

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html


Most interesting, to me. It supports my contention about controllability,
and states that stopping distance is actually better in all situations
except gravel (which is a rather uncommon road surface). It is plausible to
infer that the ABS vehicles were driven more recklessly based upon the
rollover and off-road accident statistics, but proving/disproving this
remains the issue.

I'm not against the chutes at all, but I am against letting their
presence change the behavior of the pilot.


Considering the cause of most crashes, would you trade the chute for more gas?

Jose

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

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dashi wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dan Thompson wrote:

"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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.


If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
documents then?

These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
it out yourself.

Thanks for the info, I do know how to use a search engine but you are one of
the few people that I have seen post a statement such as: "this is a
documented fact" and be able to back it up.

Congratulations,

Dashi

("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage

"Dan Thompson" wrote
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.

Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
- she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.

As dumb as car drivers and bikers.

I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.

They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?

I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
for.

Michael