will this fly?

"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.

That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty
good one for most people.

When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for
having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate
for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped.
It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS
installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.

Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and
this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example,
your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS
reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and
risk reduction being provided.

The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing
conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not
mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the
level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system
is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much
different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are
KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably
estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS
(even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no
ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here.

If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed
and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to
believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful.

First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's
enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will
there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the
risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and
the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it
still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as
well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag
lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon
opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or
even mathematically modeled.

If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has
ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the
slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for
accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they
are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and
will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will
already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it.
Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane
will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent
rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross
condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers
(which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot
ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute
deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in
this case.

Michael

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"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.

Oh, give it up already. You're talking of the nation of, just in our own
endeavor, Bleriot and St Expury and his colleagues. The nation that lost
more men fighting the German machine to a standstill in WWI, than the US has
lost in all wars combined. The nation of the Resistance (whose bravery
easily exceeded that of the rebels in 1776). The home nation of Medecins
sans frontieres. And that's just free-associating, no googling, and only
20th century.

What is it with this France-bashing? Do you need someone to feel superior
to, because you can't feel superior on your own?

-- David Brooks

Teacherjh 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. 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.

Yes, with my back condition it could be fatal. However, it is still
probably more desirable than coming down without it!

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


Matt

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. The
insurance companies found this out with antilock brakes. 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.

Now, I tend to think the average pilot is a cut above the average
driver, but we're all still human and all too often do crazy things.
Just look at the most significant causes of accidents: fuel exhaustion,
flight into IMC for VFR pilots, buzzing, etc. Almost all are due to
poor judgement and, yes, simple stupidity in many cases. If all pilots
were as intelligent as you claim, then accidents in these categories
would be near zero, and mechanical failure would be the predominant
cause of accidents. Just isn't so my friend.


Matt

Colin Kingsbury wrote:
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*.

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.


Matt

OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
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? It would be
better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
their moronic passengers who flew with them.

You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
I tip my hat to you.



"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"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.

That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty
good one for most people.

When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for
having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate
for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped.
It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS
installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.

Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and
this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example,
your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS
reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and
risk reduction being provided.

The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing
conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not
mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the
level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system
is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much
different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are
KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably
estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS
(even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no
ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here.

If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed
and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to
believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful.

First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's
enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will
there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the
risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and
the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it
still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as
well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag
lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon
opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or
even mathematically modeled.

If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has
ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the
slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for
accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they
are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and
will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will
already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it.
Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane
will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent
rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross
condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers
(which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot
ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute
deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in
this case.

Michael

"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.

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.

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

Bob

"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.'

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.

"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?

Dashi

Dan Thompson wrote:
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
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? It would be
better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
their moronic passengers who flew with them.

You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
I tip my hat to you.

Have you always had this problem with reading comprehension? We said
none of the above ... OK, maybe implied that some car drivers aren't
real bright. Then again, that is hardly a revelation to anyone who has
driven recently.


Matt