will this fly?

When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"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

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:
When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the same
time..

And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)


Matt

I don't know. That is why I have an airplane in the first place!

Mike
MU-2

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
When you and I are going from the same place to the same place at the
same
time..

And what is your schedule for the next month or so? :-)


Matt

"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.



"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
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."

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.


Matt

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*.

You may hang around with the best pilots in the country; what of it? Every
year we have tens if not hundreds of fuel starvation accidents, which are
nearly 100% preventable with even a pinch of common sense. My contention is
that you should always assume the worst when it comes to human nature.

On an individual level, there is no question that a pilot with a Cirrus has
the potential to enjoy safer flying than one in a 172. However, I think
logic well supports my position that the perceived safety will tempt some
pilots into situations they don't belong in, possibly resulting in higher
accident rates. Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.

* I haven't researched this issue carefully enough to say this is totally
conclusive, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
.com...
"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.

"Matthew S. Whiting" 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.

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.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

"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.

"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

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