If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the
lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates are so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over the mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to kill yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent. -cwk. "Dan Thompson" wrote in message gy.com... The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to accidentally
flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there would be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data points. "Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message nk.net... Not to pick on Dan personally but the "If I get into trouble I'll pull the lever" thing has just got to be part of the reason why Cirrus CFIT rates are so high. Yeah it's great to have the option when your engine quits over the mountains at night or a wing snaps off, but there are plenty of ways to kill yourself that the 'chute won't do anything to prevent. -cwk. "Dan Thompson" wrote in message gy.com... The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Thompson wrote:
What would be the effect of a thin layer of ice on a parachute canopy? There are no aerodynamics other than pure drag. This does not even consider that the trip down is going to be pretty quick anyway. Also the constant flexing of the canopy is going to shed any layers that amounted to anything, just like deicing boots. I'll wave to you on my way down! I don't know that there would be any aerodynamic impact, I was thinking more of weight. I've never seen a round canopy up close and personal. Are you sure they flex all that much? I can around the periphery where the cords attach and the air is spilling out, but I suspect that the middle half or more of the canopy is pretty rigid once filled with air and stable. Matt |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's going to occur. "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say. That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to forecast where it is *certain* to happen. but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who issues icing forecasts. This greatly reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary. Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity. The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see what happens. Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal gravity, I think that's the right way to be. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Roy Smith wrote: We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's going to occur. "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say. That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to forecast where it is *certain* to happen. but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who issues icing forecasts. This greatly reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary. Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity. The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see what happens. 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. On the issue of icing forecasts, my experience (mostly western US), is that there is almost always ice when it is forecast.. I can not think of a single flight where icing was forecast and there was no icing. It may not be forming every second at every altitude but if you fly 100nm in cloud and icing is forecast then you will find ice. There are also a lot a senarios where you will find icing below -20C in the West so the whole notion of "climbing above the ice is a falicy around here (unless you have a jet). I'm sure that there are places where it is possible to climb above the ice in a prop driven airplane on a consistant basis but not around here. Mike MU-2 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
Roy Smith wrote: We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's going to occur. "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say. That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to forecast where it is *certain* to happen. Which makes it even more ludicrous to prevent a pilot taking a look. but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who issues icing forecasts. I believe it is the FAA, in the form of the FSS, that promulgates the forecasts though and thus endorses them, de facto at the very least. This greatly reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary. Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity. Physics prevents flying in ice, but the law prevents going out and having a look in a area with icing forecasts, right? At least I believe that is what you were saying. You've conveniently clipped out your original text so I can't easily see what you wrote. Physics doesn't prevent taking a look see. The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see what happens. Flying a single engine airplane at all requires taking chances. I flew a lot of IFR flights in the northeast and have encountered ice several times. Only one of which was of any significant concern. Icing is like thunderstorms. You have to respect it and avoid it, but you don't stop flying because of an imperfect forecast. Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal gravity, I think that's the right way to be. I disagree. All flying involves risks. Flying in the northeast involves the risk of an ice encounter. My experience is that at least 9 times out of 10, the ice never materializes. And the times I have encountered ice, it was easy to find an exit. Only once, downwind of Lake Erie at night, did I have a really nasty encounter ... and this wasn't forecast! I picked up better than an inch of ice on my Skylane in less than 5 minutes. Took full throttle to maintain 110 MPH and I had to make a slow descent to 9,000 (entered the ice at 11,000) in order to maintain altitude at that airspeed. Fortunately, the ice accretion stopped at 9,000 and I carried most of that ice all the way home to ELM. Made quite a racket as some it came off on the approach (it was 40 on the ground). I'm not suggesting that anyone force a pilot to fly when ice is a possibility, but I also think it unwise to prevent a pilot from taking a look when conditions are appropriate. Obviously, I'm not talking about taking off in freezing rain or something insane like that. I'm talking the normal rime ice conditions that prevail in much of the northeast for much of the winter. Matt |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Roy Smith wrote: We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's going to occur. "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say. That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to forecast where it is *certain* to happen. but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who issues icing forecasts. This greatly reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary. Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity. The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see what happens. 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dan,
The causal connection is that the perceived safety of the 'chute causes people to attempt flights they otherwise wouldn't. Or, as you wrote, "I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise." It's true that the Cirrus fleet is small, and I'll agree it's too soon to make sound statistical statements. My opinion is thus just that. I counted 14 accidents in the NTSB database from 1999-2003, with one being a factory test pilot. It could just be a case of clustering, but it's certainly not good. Reading the reports, I had a "what the @#$! was he thinking" reaction to at least half of them. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "If anything goes wrong I'll just pull that lever" is what at least some of them were thinking. The irony here is that a "safer" airplane may in the short run turn out to be more accident-prone precisely because the perceived safety is higher than the actual safety. I certainly hope the accident rates in the Cirrus regress to the mean, because I want to see innovation and lower costs and higher capabilities and balh blah blah. Ultimately it all comes down to pilots to take their flying more seriously. While the airlines have a harder time with each passing year of finding new ways to break airplanes, we in GA seem quite happy sticking to old-fashioned but still-effective methods. Best, -cwk. "Dan Thompson" wrote in message m... How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to accidentally flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there would be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data points. "Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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." "Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message nk.net... Dan, The causal connection is that the perceived safety of the 'chute causes people to attempt flights they otherwise wouldn't. Or, as you wrote, "I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise." It's true that the Cirrus fleet is small, and I'll agree it's too soon to make sound statistical statements. My opinion is thus just that. I counted 14 accidents in the NTSB database from 1999-2003, with one being a factory test pilot. It could just be a case of clustering, but it's certainly not good. Reading the reports, I had a "what the @#$! was he thinking" reaction to at least half of them. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "If anything goes wrong I'll just pull that lever" is what at least some of them were thinking. The irony here is that a "safer" airplane may in the short run turn out to be more accident-prone precisely because the perceived safety is higher than the actual safety. I certainly hope the accident rates in the Cirrus regress to the mean, because I want to see innovation and lower costs and higher capabilities and balh blah blah. Ultimately it all comes down to pilots to take their flying more seriously. While the airlines have a harder time with each passing year of finding new ways to break airplanes, we in GA seem quite happy sticking to old-fashioned but still-effective methods. Best, -cwk. "Dan Thompson" wrote in message m... How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to accidentally flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard that there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there would be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data points. "Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|