Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

On Jun 30, 9:12*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
According to that article the Cirrus models exhibit 1.42 to 1.76 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours (depending on the time period selected - the
lower number was from a later period.) But the GA single engine fleet
exhibits about 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the opposite
claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more accidents than other
aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than three times the number of
fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours flown.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that the article indicates that members
of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have dramatically fewer
normalized accident rates than non-members.

Well, the article certainly wouldn't say that they have dramatically more,
would it?

I don't have reason to believe that Cirrus builds unsafe aircraft, but I feel
strongly that its very aggressive marketing to certain demographic profiles
encourages people to buy and fly these aircraft who in fact shouldn't be going
near them or any other aircraft.

It'd my admittedly uninformed opinion that research would demonstrate
the performance characteristics of this airplane are more like those
of a complex high performance single than a Pa 140 and pilots need
more training than a simple sign off.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web
page, statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who
are experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated
to the manufacturer's aircraft.

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

Especially when I see statements like
"... the ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of
attitude that can cause accidents. The author seems to further believe
that CAPS is a fix for all sorts of situations, such as pilot
disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I would agree with him and disagree with you that CAPS is one possible
resolution to pilot disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.
He doesn't say use of CAPS is certain to succeed in either case - merely
that timely deployment has a good chance of working.

As to low altitude loss of control: consider a stall/spin on a turn from
base to final at 500 ft. Assuming the aircraft immediately (and
unrealistically) accelerated to 5000 ft/min (~84 ft/sec) and the
deployment had to occur above 200 ft AGL to succeed, the pilot or
passenger would have about 3.5 seconds to act. Not much but certainly
plausible. But the average descent rate is likely to be half that or
less, so more like 7 seconds to react.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who
believe that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their
navigation issues forever.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

Jim Logajan writes:

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

In this case, there's too much that's subjective about the judgment to prove
anything either way. From what I've seen, it looks like Cirrus has more
accidents than it should, and it seems that many Cirrus pilots are different
from average in lack of experience, lack of caution, or in other ways that
make them particularly prone to pilot error. However, the numbers can be
cooked and recooked to "prove" almost anything.

Even without looking at pilots, one need only look at Cirrus' marketing
strategy to be able to predict that it's going to attract the wrong kind of
people to flying their aircraft.

It's a bit like the flying car I just posted a link about in another new
thread. However, the flying car is unlikely to ever become any kind of
practicable reality, so there's no risk associated with the hype being built
around it.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

The parachute was originally installed to get past the fact that Cirrus
aircraft behave very poorly in spins. Cirrus marketing turned a liability into
an (apparent) asset, which is quite an accomplishment, but not one that I
think serves the public interest.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

I don't have a Cirrus, although Eaglesoft supposedly makes a nice one that
I've been thinking about (when I have the budget). Since the Cirrus simulation
would essentially be a simulation of two PC screens on another PC screen, I
have some doubts--it's hard to simulate all-in-one glass panels accurately,
unless one has access to the original source code or a great deal of time to
work on it.

MSFS also is not tops at simulating unusual flight regimes, given its
table-based design. I do note that Carenado's Cessnas seem to behave in a spin
just as the real aircraft supposedly behave, or at least they are difficult to
spin and easy to recover.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

That's what I would expect them to claim. It's hard to imagine that they are
completely unbiased. Other sources I've visited point out how the numbers can
be cooked.

In general, I am suspicious of companies that spend too much on marketing.
Cessna has been guilty of that a bit in the past and perhaps even today.
Beechcraft seems to be much more conservative. It seems that the high end
often spends money on quality and then lets the product speak for itself,
whereas the low end spends a lot more on marketing to conceal the shortcomings
of a product (not just in aviation, of course).

a writes:

It'd my admittedly uninformed opinion that research would demonstrate
the performance characteristics of this airplane are more like those
of a complex high performance single than a Pa 140 and pilots need
more training than a simple sign off.

It has a reputation for good performance in its class. I don't think that
would explain so many pilots messing up, though. I think Cirrus is
deliberately marketing to pilots who probably shouldn't be flying the
airplane, which I consider unethical.

Cory Lidle isn't necessarily a typical example in all ways, but his accident
illustrates my concern and the type of pilot whom I believe Cirrus is trying
inappropriately to attract.

On Jun 30, 9:06*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the
opposite claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more
accidents than other aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than
three times the number of fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours
flown.

If you could provide a bibliographic reference or URL to that claim it
would be appreciated.

He won't..... Never does provide references.....

Several of you have said exactly the same things that I would have said in
both branches of this thread, have said before in previous threads, and (in
the case of the Young Eagles and Flying Start programs) have said in person
to all who'd listen and many who wouldn't.

My point is that y'all have been trolled again, and in the most classic
sense of internet trolling.

The only reason that I really felt compelled to write the above, which has
also been "done to death", is that this is an election year and we are all
going to see and hear a lot more statements and questions much like the ones
from our very own favorite local usenet troll--assertions that frequently
sound possible, but with poor or absent bibliographical data and unrelenting
demands that the opposition provide perfect bibliographies.

In my home state, we are more than midway through the primary campaigns for
governor, and I haven't heard many demands for proof of anything; but the
rest looks and sounds a lot like the worst threads in R.A.P and R.A.S.

As Yogi phrases it: "It's deja vu all over again."

Peter

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

Several of you have said exactly the same things that I would have said in
both branches of this thread, have said before in previous threads, and (in
the case of the Young Eagles and Flying Start programs) have said in person
to all who'd listen and many who wouldn't.

My point is that y'all have been trolled again, and in the most classic
sense of internet trolling.

Really? All I see here is a pretty reasonable and interesting discussion
about pilot training, outreach, and Cirrus aircraft safety.

Yes, the instigator of the discussion is a notorious troll. And yet,
he's managed to spawn a very good discussion. Very good discussions, I
will note, are extremely thin on the ground in this place right now.

Will it degenerate into a stupid troll-fest? Maybe. That's why I'm
avoiding a direct argument with the original poster, and why I think
others should too. But for now I don't care who started the discussion,
it's interesting.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jul 2, 3:34*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.


The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

Cheers

On Jun 30, 3:43*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

That said, if those ~0.27% go on to become pilots, it would be comparable
to, but slightly better than, the fraction of the U.S. population that are
certificated pilots (~600,000/~300,000,000 =~ 0.2%)

Actually 35% better.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.