will this fly?

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Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law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

Robert Henry wrote:
"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.

Most drivers aren't trained properly period!


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.

Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
around obstacles whether you have ABS or not. The only difference with
ABS is that you don't need to think about modulating the brakes in
addition to thinking about steering.


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

I'd rather have a non ABS vehicle, but they are very hard to find. I
still have both and much prefer my non ABS vehicle, especially in the
snow. I can stop much faster without ABS. On dry pavement, you can
also stop faster if you are proficient at threshold braking. However,
very few people are so I don't doubt that the average driver will stop
faster in an ABS equipped car. Threshold braking takes a lot more skill
than mashing the peddle with all your might! The proficient driver will
stop about as fast on dry pavement and faster on loose surfaces such as
sand and snow. The only advantage I can think of for ABS that can't be
duplicated by driver skill is having one side of the car on pavement and
the other on ice. ABS can modulate the brakes individually on each
wheel. No driver can do that.

On soft surfaces, locked wheels allow you to stop faster, but at the
loss of steering control. However, if all I need to do is stop, then
I'd much rather have the option to lock the wheels. If I need to steer
I can threshold brake and modulate the brakes myself. My only real
close call in the winter was with my new ABS equipped minivan. Didn't
have the option to steer around as the windrows of plowed snow blocked
the berm, and I couldn't lock the wheels to stop faster. I've driven in
the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
my non ABS vehicle. Luckily, I was going slow enough to stop anyway,
but the ABS raised my blood pressure considerably! It felt as though I
had no brakes at all. With locked wheels, as the snow piles up in front
of the tires, the braking force continually increases.

I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
had the opportunity to fly one yet though...


Matt

Robert Henry wrote:
"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.'

That may well be the case. However, it still supports the point that
often additional safety equipment doesn't have the desired effect for a
variety of reasons that can't always be anticipatd.


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.

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.

I agree that training and an emphasis on using good judgment and knowing
the limitations of your equipment is extremely important to safe flight.


Matt

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.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed...6/pr121096.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html

This one addresses a theory for the cause. As with all theories, there
are those who question it, but it seems to be pretty well supported by
the evidence.

http://www.drivers.com/article/164/


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Most drivers aren't trained properly period!

Absolutely true. Back before the summer, I had the opportunity to "drive
IFR" through the Cumberland Gap. Road signs were only readable from within
30-50 feet. I was really wishing for a localiser for the lanes and off
ramps. Cars streamed by me at 70-75. I maintained 50 just to keep from
being rear ended. The very next weekend was Memorial Day Weekend; the
weather persisted, and 100 vehicles were wrecked up there and the road was
closed for 24 hours.


Why is the mindset different with ABS? You should be trying to steer
around obstacles whether you have ABS or not.

Simply because steering is impossible if the tires are locked up. The
studies also show most human beings are unable to modulate the brakes
effectively overall. What I think happens is that in no-ABS cars, the
reaction times and stopping distances are enough to overcome the need to
steer - which doesn't matter, because it's nearly impossible unless stopping
distance is sacrificed by the release of brake pressure. Then and only then
is steering possible. In ABS vehicles, the car will always sacrfice distance
for controllability. I submit that if the driver hasn't figured that out,
the mindset is not correct for the equipment.

I've driven in
the winter for 30 years and I know I could have stopped much faster with
my non ABS vehicle.

Going back to my original point, you have much training in using non-ABS
equipped vehicles. My training was in both, and I prefer the ABS - maybe it
was easier to learn, or I didn't have to untrain all the non-ABS experience.
I have been in similar situations in both kinds of cars and I can tell you
the outcome was always better in the ABS equipped vehicle - just luck,
maybe..., but no exaggeration. Of course, I don't change my driving style
based upon the braking equipment either.

I like the Cirrus also, at least from what I've seen and read. Never
had the opportunity to fly one yet though...

I have about 5 hours in an SR-22. All my training was in Cessnas. It was no
transition despite sidestick, low-wing, and high performance. It came
together like bread and butter. Highly recommended. And I didn't change my
flying style based upon the chute or anything else in the airplane. Well, I
didn't have to have anything like a chart or a checklist on my lap for the
entire flight -but they were close at hand.

Bob