Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Thomas Borchert wrote
Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Huh? You're saying there are more fatalities per miles driven, persons
transported, cars in the system or whatever other meaningful rate you
like to chose? It ain't so.

It ain't so, and it's not what I'm saying at all. Fatalities are down
by any meaningful measure (of course total fatalities are up, but
that's just because there are so many more cars and drivers on the
road). Accident rates are up. Collision insurance rates are up in
real dollars. We're having more accidents than ever, but a far
smaller fraction of them are fatal.

Reasons? Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, impact-attenuating
crash barriers, etc. Those things work, because they don't do
anything to prevent accidents but simply make them more survivable.
Insurance companies won't give you a break for ABS anymore - they've
discovered that drivers who have ABS and know it simply drive more
agressively.

Michael

Aviv Hod wrote:

I don't know how common this is in other places, but when I learned to drive
in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, where the speed limit is the standard 20 miles
per hour business district limit, you can go through all of downtown
(guessing 6 to 10 lights) with a green light, by going exactly 18 miles per
hour.

In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like this. In one
direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you held to
within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction, you'd catch
exactly one red light doing this.

By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State posted a
speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and got
overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster than 25
mph.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

road). Accident rates are up. Collision insurance rates are up in
real dollars. We're having more accidents than ever, but a far
smaller fraction of them are fatal.

And this might turn out to be exactly what happens in the Cirrus fleet, too.
(Right now they have both more fatals and more total accidents, but it is
too early to know for sure if the fatals are truly a trend or a statistical
blip.)

If it does happen, it will be a good thing for aviation safety. However,
aviation hull insurance costs a good bit more than automobile collision
insurance. Up to a point, it will thus be a net very positive outcome if
the Cirrus fleet has higer insurance costs and more total accidents but less
fatal accidents over the long-term. At a certain point, though, the hull
insurance cost could become unrealistic, particularly considering the fact
that most fatal GA accidents remain due to pilot error rather than
mechanical problems. We have to see how all the numbers and dollars turn
out over the next few years.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Ron,

But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.


I agree. And there's a high likelyhood for the latter. The question is:
Does that make the chute a bad thing? That's where I say: Not at all.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article , ISLIP wrote:
Agreed Richard. All one has to do is check the hull premiums on a Pilatus or
Lear to see that. Higher value, higher premium. The bigger COST to the
insurance company remains medical/death payouts

Not only does a Lear hold more people than say, a C140, and costs a lot
more, when it crashes lots more stuff (and people) are likely to get
broken.

It didn't really surprise me when looking at NTSB reports, trying to
find out how people crashed C140s, so I didn't do something similar and
crash mine after I bought it was that there were so few injury
accidents. If you crash slowly, you're less likely to be hurt. Crash in
a Lear and for many types of crashes, you'll probably kill or seriously
injure everyone on board. This makes the 'fixing people' bit rather more
expensive.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

In WWI the British forbid the use of parachutes in military aircraft because
they thought the pilot would be more likely to use the chute than make the
effort to bring a damaged aircraft back to the field. A lot of needless deaths
occured because of the stupidity of a few people.
I suspect the same reluctance to progress is at work here. One can speculate
that of the previous fatal VFR to IMC Cirrus accidents, lives MAY have been
saved if the chute had been deployed. Skip the arguement that Cirrus chute
didn't deploy - that now seems to be corrected as evidenced by the last 3
deployments.
There's a lot of NTSB reports of fatal accidents reports in which the
availability of a working chute probably would have been very appreciated by
the now deceased occupants.

John

NOTE: I'm working from memory of some things I read about three years ago.
If I have any errors or omissions please post a correction.

There are two major problems with the Cirrus BRS system at this point:
training and human nature.

In many areas of life, including flight training, we are taught two major
aspects of problem resolution. The first is to identify the problem by using
one or more checklists (written or mental) to determine the precise nature
of the problem. The second is to determine the corrective action, again by
using one or more mental or written checklists. Obviously, if you lose a
wing in flight problem identification is quick, and problem resolution is
limited to one option (prayer). But by and large we use the step-by-step
problem solving techniques we have been taught. That's the training issue.

On the human nature side, we are (by and large) thinking creatures, not just
robots. And our decision making process is often influenced by factors
outside of our training. If you are flying a GA aircraft that you personally
own, in the back of your mind will be the $100,000 or way up you have sunk
in the aircraft. And all too often, in the event of a serious problem, the
end result, if the problem is not corrected, is a broken airplane on the
ground with you in it. So, when your airplane has a problem, these kinds of
factors will be in at least the back of your mind. Any time we are presented
with a problem, human nature drives us to keep trying to find a solution.
And when flying an aircraft, you are even more driven by the unpleasantness
of the possible consequences of not solving the problem.

We have see up the background, now let's look at how this applies to the
Cirrus BRS.

The key factors are the short threshold time, and the narrrow window. In the
Cirrus, when you are presented with certain types of problems, you only have
a short period of time before the chute must be deployed, and a short window
after that when the chute will still be effective. If you delay deployment,
the BRS will not be able to save the aircraft. Let me give you an analogy,
which may or may not be fully accurate, but which will illustrate the point:

Consider a pilot in a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier. He gives his
"thumbs up", the catapult fires, and he begins his takeoff roll. But just
after he rotates, all engines flame out. The pilot then has two options: a
restart, or an eject. If he ejects, he saves himself, but he loses the
airplane. If he restarts, he and the plane both come out OK. But there's a
problem with the restart option: if it is not begun immediately or if it
takes too long, an eject will not work; the chute will not open.

So the pilot is taught that under this set of circumstances he shouldn't
even consider a restart, he should just eject.

And from what I understand, this is the situation with the Cirrus. If you
are presented with a certain type of problem, you must deploy the BRS right
then. You cannot attempt to solve the problem, because if you do, during the
time you spent trying to solve the problem, you have put the BRS outside of
it's operating window and it will no longer function. And you wouldn't be
able to solve the problem in the first place.

So, a Cirrus puts the pilot outside of the problem-solving methods he has
previously learned. The engine stops. In a typical GA plane you check the
fuel, check the mags, check a few other things and try to the resolve the
issue. In a Cirrus, you only need to determine that the engine has stopped
and deploy the BRS. You don't need to know why the engine stopped or what
must be done to restart it: it's stopped, you pull the handle. Obviously,
the "engine out" example is an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Then to human nature. You're in a gypical GA plane, ou're engine is out, you
are going to attempt everything possible to restart it. Because you are
thinking: "I spent $300,000 on this airplane, I'm not going to let it get
bent". And you also have no other alternative. So, you try this, and you try
than, and you try the other until you either get it fixed or you run out of
sky.

But in a Cirrus, you cannot follow human nature, you have to just say it's
broke, pull the handle. In many instances you will not be able to fix what's
wrong, and if you do spend time trying to fix it you will run outside of the
window where the BRS system will properly and effectively deploy.

So, the Cirrus and the BRS system are not inherently less safe than a
conventional aircraft, but you do have to break some old habits and develop
a good understaning of how the aircraft works. "That's broke, pull the
handle", "that's broke, pull the handle", that has to become your mantra.
Then you'll be OK...

"ISLIP" wrote in message
...

I suspect the same reluctance to progress is at work here. One can
speculate
that of the previous fatal VFR to IMC Cirrus accidents, lives MAY have
been
saved if the chute had been deployed. Skip the arguement that Cirrus chute

Everyone agrees that a chute is a great idea in case of strutural failure.
Most would agree it is a good idea for engine failure at night or over
mountains. There would likely be debate regarding whether it is a good idea
with an engine failure while VFR/VMC over the midwest. There would likely
be even more debate regarding whether using the BRS is a good idea in a
partial panel situation (noting also that the definition of partial panel
depends on whether this is a PFD airplane or a steam-gauge airplane).

But VFR into IMC is another story. First, given an appropriate weather
briefing this should not occur. Second, if this does occur then the pilot
should have enough emergency training to do a 180 in IMC and turn back to
VFR conditions. Does it make sense to total a perfectly functioning
airplane because the pilot did not know how to continue flying it in the
situation he got into? In fact, is it not possible that the BRS will result
in a landing into power lines or on an interstate highway or somewhere else
which will result in pilot injury, whereas a 180 back to VFR might result
in no injury and no damage?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Ron Lee" wrote in message But let's get the facts about this parachute
deployment and assess
whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

There are less than perfect pilots. Some pilots need crutches. Without the
crutch, 4 people likely would have been seriously injured. The plane came
down amongst pine trees. Even if the crutch was for ineptitude, it was still
a good thing.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...

There are less than perfect pilots. Some pilots need crutches. Without the
crutch, 4 people likely would have been seriously injured. The plane came
down amongst pine trees. Even if the crutch was for ineptitude, it was
still
a good thing.

What would happen if the BRS set the airplane down on an interstate highway?
On top of power lines? In a lake? Downtown in a highly populated urban
area?

Is it possible under these conditions that injuries could have occurred in a
BRS landing whereas conventionally handling the emergency could result in no
injuries?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com