Iced up Cirrus crashes

If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
seconds, you die

If the engine fails and you don't notice, you are already dead.

Jose

Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight

Actually I think that's a myth. There are more car accidents, but there
are more car trips, car miles, and car hours too. By the time you
divide it out (and it can be argued exactly what to divide out), spam
can flying probably does not turn out to be more safe than driving yourself.

Jose

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:

Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.

Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive

I've never had my antilock brakes break.


Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight (particularly given the way I
drive). The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few people
ever give that a second thought.

No. Flying a light airplane is MANY times more dangerous than driving to the
airport.

Karl

"Steve.T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jon:

Who granted your "engineer" status? I certainly hope it wasn't the NJ
Cosmatology Board.

There are no Software Engineers that I'm aware of, only a title for a
position, but no engineers. This is a legal thing, and why I ask,
because I also do software and have for years.

Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I
know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with
dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a
certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers using
the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software is
developed.

It's like calling someone as "combustible refuse engineer" when they really
are just a garbageman.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight

Actually I think that's a myth. There are more car accidents, but there
are more car trips, car miles, and car hours too. By the time you
divide it out (and it can be argued exactly what to divide out), spam
can flying probably does not turn out to be more safe than driving yourself.

As you say, it depends on how you count. Do you count total accidents?
Accidents per participant? Accidents per hour? Per mile? Per
passenger mile? But the more significant factor is, I think: do you
count the accidents that were caused by circumstances that you never
place yourself in? Do you count Vmc accidents in twins if you never fly
a twin? Do you count fuel exhaustion and inadvertent VFR into IMC if
you are absolutely religious about checking your fuel, having plenty of
margin, have an instrument rating, stay current, and always file IFR if
there's a cloud within 500 nm? Do you count stall-spin accidents in
Tomahawks if you fly a Cirrus? Do you count icing accidents in the
mountains at night if...?

It's probably true that if you fly and drive with the same mindset that
flying more dangerous. But the way *I* fly and the way *I* drive,
getting to the airport is definitely the scary part. And I'm pretty
sure that I'm far from unique.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight

No, not for private flying. Not even close. The fatal accident rate for
flying is several times (as much as 700%) higher.

You may be thinking of the comparison between driving and scheduled
airline travel.

The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few
people
ever give that a second thought.

That is because an individual's statistical risk of dying in an auto
crash is quite small. You are confusing accident rates with accident
totals.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , "kage"
wrote:

No. Flying a light airplane is MANY times more dangerous than driving to the
airport.

unless I ride my motorcycle...

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

I had to reply to the incident regarding the Cirrus that recently went
down in icing conditions, at night, in the mountains. There has been a
lot of discussion on the Cirrus Owners website regarding recent
accidents and wether or not they are related to the safety of the
Cirrus. I have owned an SR22 since August and love the plane, so I'm
not unbiased, but as a reference, in 2004 there were 20 fatal accidents
in 182's vs 3 fatal accidents in Cirrus. I have no statistics on the
hours flown in each type.

Anyway, hope I'm not intruding on your forum, but interesting to see we
have the same discussions.

Best Regards. Fly safe.


--
scotta2728
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Ron Garret wrote:




As you say, it depends on how you count. Do you count total accidents?
Accidents per participant? Accidents per hour? Per mile? Per
passenger mile?

It doesn't matter what or how you count as long as both forms of
transportation are counted the same. And when you do that you will see
flying is many times more dangerous than driving. It's much more
dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

I have to disagree with the claim that TKS can't be overwhelmed, since I
have it on my Baron. In situations of moderate or greater ice will
accumulate on the leading edges, but then gets mushy and falls off. However,
in severe conditions I would not want to trust my life to the supposition
that TKS makes me invincible.