will this fly?

"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.

"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

"Robert Henry" wrote
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.

You may well be right. However, it's a distinction without a
difference. The effect is the same - the safety advantage fails to
materialize because of the human element, even though there's nothing
wrong with the technology.

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.

Right. And therefore it doesn't really matter whether the cause is
being more agressive or just not understanding the system - either
way, the safety gain will fail to materialize.

Something very similar occurs in privately owned twins. The
transition training available is generally grossly inadequate. You
don't want to know how little multiengine experience the average
practicing multiengine instructor actually has. Decent simulators are
generally not available. As a result, the safety advantage of the
second engine generally fails to materialize.

In fact, all the safety advantages - ABS, chute, second engine - are
real. However, they are LIMITED. There are things they WILL do for
you, there are things they WON'T do for you, and they are never free -
they all have downsides.

Michael

Well, someone else with this idea just folded.

http://www.morrowaircraft.com/




"Lee Elson" wrote in message
om...
Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to
several groups.

I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
(people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (
600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies
but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also
aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional
activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these
restrictions.

I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
where someone has made a business meeting these types of
transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
who are the customers, what are the costs).

email replies preferred

Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing?

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, ET said:
"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:
Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.

My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing
conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially
since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean
any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you
have pireps of no icing.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said:
Isn't the TKS equipped SR-22 certified for known icing?

I don't think so, yet. See
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...&article_id=99

"For the 2003 model year, Cirrus is offering an optional TKS anti-icing
system for the SR22. The "weeping wing" system--that will deice the wings,
horizontal stabilizer and propeller--will not be certified for known icing,
but will be designed to allow pilots to escape from icing conditions. The
fluid reservoir will hold about an hour's worth of protection in order to
preclude pilots from thinking they can use the system to fly in ice. A
known-icing system with a larger reservoir will be a follow-on
development. The TKS system is priced at $19,700."



--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Documentation: Cryptic, lacking, erroneous. Pick any three.
-- Arvid

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:11:16 GMT, "McGregor"
wrote:

Well, someone else with this idea just folded.

http://www.morrowaircraft.com/

Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

Rob