OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
I have this great book on my shelf titled "How to lie with statistics"
I have this great book on my shelf titled "How to lie with statistics"
"safe" piston single-engine planes
- Thread starter ozone
- Start date
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Please explain how it is the only option? A perfectly flying aircraft inadvertently flying into IMC should not need the chute pulled. Unless somethinge is wrong with the aircraft, the chute should stay intact unless the pilot knows they are disoriented. Don't forget that Cirrus as a fully capable autopilot. Just toss the wing leveler on and altitude hold and maybe try to use the heading bug to turn around. The chute would be an expensive mistake.
Well lets see, IFR separation of aircraft. Less aircraft in the airspace system during IFR days, smooth VFR days create a way for complacent pilots to get hurt. Not to mention VFR pilots that don't pay enough attention around VOR's. IFR traffic is guaranteed separation from other IFR traffic, but VFR traffic could hit VFR and IFR traffic. For an experienced pilot that has the right attitude, I think a VFR day is more dangerous than an IFR day.
lol aviation statistics only makes lying easier
Please explain how it is the only option? A perfectly flying aircraft inadvertently flying into IMC should not need the chute pulled. Unless somethinge is wrong with the aircraft, the chute should stay intact unless the pilot knows they are disoriented. Don't forget that Cirrus as a fully capable autopilot. Just toss the wing leveler on and altitude hold and maybe try to use the heading bug to turn around. The chute would be an expensive mistake.
Well lets see, IFR separation of aircraft. Less aircraft in the airspace system during IFR days, smooth VFR days create a way for complacent pilots to get hurt. Not to mention VFR pilots that don't pay enough attention around VOR's. IFR traffic is guaranteed separation from other IFR traffic, but VFR traffic could hit VFR and IFR traffic. For an experienced pilot that has the right attitude, I think a VFR day is more dangerous than an IFR day.
lol aviation statistics only makes lying easier
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Yup, I was a professional pilot and every single job I've ever applied for required a commercial single/multi and an instrument ticket at the least.
Yup, I was a professional pilot and every single job I've ever applied for required a commercial single/multi and an instrument ticket at the least.
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
That is incorrect. FAR part 23.221 states that :
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.
If the Cirrus is a normal category aircraft, then it has undergone spin testing.
The fact is that it doesn't recover well. Personally I believe that the major problem with the Cirrus regarding spins is the composite structure. It's too lightweight and when the spin is entered, the aircraft rotates around the engine, which is the heaviest part of the airplane. This would make recovery from a spin very, very difficult. Hence, they installed a parachute. The other fact is that there is a placard on the handle cover that says: In case of inadvertant spin entry, pull handle.
As for the safest single engine airplane. It's the one with the safest pilot. And why do fewer aircraft crash when they are under IFR rather than VFR. The answer is simple.
MEA's
MOCA's
OROCA's
MCA's
MDA's
DH's
If these mean nothing to the pilot's reading, then you have no business in weather less than VFR minimums. Instrument rated pilots know more about procedures relating to flying and are safer pilots. The aircraft that are equipped for, and certified for IFR are (In the right hands) safer aircraft when the pilot knows how to interpret the information he (or she) is recieving.
Most of these light aircraft accidents and incidents are from low time or low experience pilots getting themself into situations that they shouldn't be in in the first place. The "Hey, watch this" and the "I betcha I can . ." pilots are just plain dangerous unless they have the experience behind them.
But that's just my point of view.
That is incorrect. FAR part 23.221 states that :
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.
If the Cirrus is a normal category aircraft, then it has undergone spin testing.
The fact is that it doesn't recover well. Personally I believe that the major problem with the Cirrus regarding spins is the composite structure. It's too lightweight and when the spin is entered, the aircraft rotates around the engine, which is the heaviest part of the airplane. This would make recovery from a spin very, very difficult. Hence, they installed a parachute. The other fact is that there is a placard on the handle cover that says: In case of inadvertant spin entry, pull handle.
As for the safest single engine airplane. It's the one with the safest pilot. And why do fewer aircraft crash when they are under IFR rather than VFR. The answer is simple.
MEA's
MOCA's
OROCA's
MCA's
MDA's
DH's
If these mean nothing to the pilot's reading, then you have no business in weather less than VFR minimums. Instrument rated pilots know more about procedures relating to flying and are safer pilots. The aircraft that are equipped for, and certified for IFR are (In the right hands) safer aircraft when the pilot knows how to interpret the information he (or she) is recieving.
Most of these light aircraft accidents and incidents are from low time or low experience pilots getting themself into situations that they shouldn't be in in the first place. The "Hey, watch this" and the "I betcha I can . ." pilots are just plain dangerous unless they have the experience behind them.
But that's just my point of view.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
VFR is much much much more dangerous than IFR even for equally trained and skilled pilots if the weather is only marginally VFR. Ever heard "no separation services will be provided? VFR also has the problem of it being difficult to tell fully when you have dropped below VFR, because the only weather reporting you have is the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Add to the fact that VFR operations by their very nature do not provide clearance from the terrain, and that VFR ops are often perfomed in very congested and complicated airspace and you can run into problems.
When VFR flights are in good weather, I would think that the safety would roughly be about the same as IFR with some exceptions (i.e. the vicinity of VORs)
Also, it should be noted that most accidents occur on takeoff or landing which should happen when you're IFR and VFR (should, every now and then someone lawn-darts) and that commercial operators (other than airlines) tend to have higher accident rates than joe-blow civilian for the same period of time.
My conclusion. Its all ####ing unsafe, keep your head on a swivvel, even when you're IFR, and realize that you must always be cogniscient of an escape route, especially when you are in low visibility VFR ops, or in challenging IFR wx (not low approaches, that's just another day at the office, I mean serious ice, ridiculous turbulence, powerful convective activity). Don't do anything stupid, and remember to keep flying the airplane. My. $.02
VFR is much much much more dangerous than IFR even for equally trained and skilled pilots if the weather is only marginally VFR. Ever heard "no separation services will be provided? VFR also has the problem of it being difficult to tell fully when you have dropped below VFR, because the only weather reporting you have is the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Add to the fact that VFR operations by their very nature do not provide clearance from the terrain, and that VFR ops are often perfomed in very congested and complicated airspace and you can run into problems.
When VFR flights are in good weather, I would think that the safety would roughly be about the same as IFR with some exceptions (i.e. the vicinity of VORs)
Also, it should be noted that most accidents occur on takeoff or landing which should happen when you're IFR and VFR (should, every now and then someone lawn-darts) and that commercial operators (other than airlines) tend to have higher accident rates than joe-blow civilian for the same period of time.
My conclusion. Its all ####ing unsafe, keep your head on a swivvel, even when you're IFR, and realize that you must always be cogniscient of an escape route, especially when you are in low visibility VFR ops, or in challenging IFR wx (not low approaches, that's just another day at the office, I mean serious ice, ridiculous turbulence, powerful convective activity). Don't do anything stupid, and remember to keep flying the airplane. My. $.02
splash
your social justice comic center
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Sure. Less aircraft out flying in IFR weather which means less aircraft are at risk of something happening. People rather fly in VFR and more aircraft are flying during VFR so more things happen.
IFR has a higher fatality rate.
Sure. Less aircraft out flying in IFR weather which means less aircraft are at risk of something happening. People rather fly in VFR and more aircraft are flying during VFR so more things happen.
IFR has a higher fatality rate.
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Sheblerep, the cirrus website explicitly states that the aircraft was never formally tested in spins. Instead, ELOS (Equivilent Level of Safety) was implimented.
"The "ELOS" was a very straightforward alanlysis: beyond any other discussion CAPS was a way to deal with the off-chance that a spin was allowed to develop. All understood that pilot skill could not be relied upon."
www.http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
At the bottom it states that spins were done, however the a/c was not certified to spin, in fact, they are expressly prohibited.
"Was this all necessary?
Opinion: No, the Cirrus would have been certified anyway:
The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Cirrus: Yes it was necessary: Regardless of anything in the spin area, future designs (from Cirrus and others) need to disregard spins:
The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins. "
-It is true that there is no such thing as a "safe" airplane. Only safe pilots.
Whats that old quote, "the j-3 is the safest aircraft out there, it can only barely kill you".
Sheblerep, the cirrus website explicitly states that the aircraft was never formally tested in spins. Instead, ELOS (Equivilent Level of Safety) was implimented.
"The "ELOS" was a very straightforward alanlysis: beyond any other discussion CAPS was a way to deal with the off-chance that a spin was allowed to develop. All understood that pilot skill could not be relied upon."
www.http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
At the bottom it states that spins were done, however the a/c was not certified to spin, in fact, they are expressly prohibited.
"Was this all necessary?
Opinion: No, the Cirrus would have been certified anyway:
The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Cirrus: Yes it was necessary: Regardless of anything in the spin area, future designs (from Cirrus and others) need to disregard spins:
The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins. "
-It is true that there is no such thing as a "safe" airplane. Only safe pilots.
Whats that old quote, "the j-3 is the safest aircraft out there, it can only barely kill you".
ozone
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
So, back to my original question: does an accident RATE per model/maker of plane help in determining if a particular make/model is a "safe" plane. I know, I know...no safe planes..only safe pilots blah, blah, blah.
BUT, if one were to purchase a plane after accumulating the necessary experience/ratings etc. is there a place for looking at accident rates of makes/models of airplanes before buying? That was the gist of my question
OK...now continue the discussion at will
So, back to my original question: does an accident RATE per model/maker of plane help in determining if a particular make/model is a "safe" plane. I know, I know...no safe planes..only safe pilots blah, blah, blah.
BUT, if one were to purchase a plane after accumulating the necessary experience/ratings etc. is there a place for looking at accident rates of makes/models of airplanes before buying? That was the gist of my question
OK...now continue the discussion at will
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Nope. Because the 172 is about the safest airplane you can find, and it probably has more accidents than any other light piston single.
So, back to my original question: does an accident RATE per model/maker of plane help in determining if a particular make/model is a "safe" plane. I know, I know...no safe planes..only safe pilots blah, blah, blah.
BUT, if one were to purchase a plane after accumulating the necessary experience/ratings etc. is there a place for looking at accident rates of makes/models of airplanes before buying? That was the gist of my question
OK...now continue the discussion at will
Nope. Because the 172 is about the safest airplane you can find, and it probably has more accidents than any other light piston single.
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Someone is (cant figure out who) confusing rate (i.e. per flight hour) vs Total number of accidents.
After flying a Cirrus and working with the company, the Cirrus got a bad rap because of Cirrus' marketing. They have marketed their airplane VERY well, maybe too well. They have gotten pilots to learn to fly in a 200hp, 150kt airplane, far from your 'normal' trainer. They are then putting these freshly trained pilots in 310hp, 210kt, turbocharged airplanes with less than 100 hours. People that before the Cirrus came along never would have considered such an airplane. I firmly believe the the Cirrus provides an equal level of safety as any other airplane for the same pilot flying it. The Chute and TKs (non certified) have gotten a flak for providing a false sense of safety. Some people understand the limitations of these systems and some do not. All Cirrus pilots should not be lumped together as those that do not. I see the TKS is a useful tool get out of unforeseen situations. The first ice I ever got on an airplane was in a 172, in a layer about 200 feet thick at 1000 feet, I was able to climb over it, and then had to descend back through it, while it was a little discomforting, and I wouldn't have minded a way to shed it, I didn't feel threatened by it. Had I been flying a cirrus, I would have certainly shed the ice, but I don't feel that a TKS system would have made that flight any safer. As for the chute, I could care less. There are enough features in a cirrus that any properly trained VFR pilot in an inadvertent IMC encounter should be able to get out easily with proper use of the auto pilot. This scenario is trained for in the 10 hour training course, as well as extensive use of the autopilot in normal situations. After doing most of my training in not chute equipped airplanes I would heave a hard time giving up all control of the airplane with an engine failure above 1000 feet. Under 1000 feet the chute will not be fully deployed before impact anyway. The only thing that I would immediately pull the chute for would be an uncontrollable structural failure or mid air collision, at which point it is a nice safety net so to speak. Again, I'm not trying to defend the Cirrus in all situations. There have certainly been enough dumbasses that have killed themselves in a Cirrus for putting way too much trust in the marketing department, but there are hundreds of times more pilots that think that the Cirrus has the same limitations as a 182.
Someone is (cant figure out who) confusing rate (i.e. per flight hour) vs Total number of accidents.
After flying a Cirrus and working with the company, the Cirrus got a bad rap because of Cirrus' marketing. They have marketed their airplane VERY well, maybe too well. They have gotten pilots to learn to fly in a 200hp, 150kt airplane, far from your 'normal' trainer. They are then putting these freshly trained pilots in 310hp, 210kt, turbocharged airplanes with less than 100 hours. People that before the Cirrus came along never would have considered such an airplane. I firmly believe the the Cirrus provides an equal level of safety as any other airplane for the same pilot flying it. The Chute and TKs (non certified) have gotten a flak for providing a false sense of safety. Some people understand the limitations of these systems and some do not. All Cirrus pilots should not be lumped together as those that do not. I see the TKS is a useful tool get out of unforeseen situations. The first ice I ever got on an airplane was in a 172, in a layer about 200 feet thick at 1000 feet, I was able to climb over it, and then had to descend back through it, while it was a little discomforting, and I wouldn't have minded a way to shed it, I didn't feel threatened by it. Had I been flying a cirrus, I would have certainly shed the ice, but I don't feel that a TKS system would have made that flight any safer. As for the chute, I could care less. There are enough features in a cirrus that any properly trained VFR pilot in an inadvertent IMC encounter should be able to get out easily with proper use of the auto pilot. This scenario is trained for in the 10 hour training course, as well as extensive use of the autopilot in normal situations. After doing most of my training in not chute equipped airplanes I would heave a hard time giving up all control of the airplane with an engine failure above 1000 feet. Under 1000 feet the chute will not be fully deployed before impact anyway. The only thing that I would immediately pull the chute for would be an uncontrollable structural failure or mid air collision, at which point it is a nice safety net so to speak. Again, I'm not trying to defend the Cirrus in all situations. There have certainly been enough dumbasses that have killed themselves in a Cirrus for putting way too much trust in the marketing department, but there are hundreds of times more pilots that think that the Cirrus has the same limitations as a 182.
roundout
VNAV monitor
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Cirrus have had the highest number of accidents because their corporate policy promotes dangerous and foolish behavior.
Any airplane can kill you once you start ignoring its limitations. Some airplanes are designed better than others (aerodynamically, ergonomically, aesthetically, safety). Most do a particular job well. Some don't do anything well.
It really comes down to the pilots. A Cirrus in the hand of a pro is a perfectly safe airplane. A Cirrus in the hand of a well-trained, responsible, proficient Private Pilot is a perfectly safe airplane as well. In the hands of a weekend warrior who flies once a month or once every 3 months to "stay legal," I'll go out on a limb and say any airplane ever built would be dangerous. Including Cirrus. And who do they market to.....
Cirrus have had the highest number of accidents because their corporate policy promotes dangerous and foolish behavior.
Any airplane can kill you once you start ignoring its limitations. Some airplanes are designed better than others (aerodynamically, ergonomically, aesthetically, safety). Most do a particular job well. Some don't do anything well.
It really comes down to the pilots. A Cirrus in the hand of a pro is a perfectly safe airplane. A Cirrus in the hand of a well-trained, responsible, proficient Private Pilot is a perfectly safe airplane as well. In the hands of a weekend warrior who flies once a month or once every 3 months to "stay legal," I'll go out on a limb and say any airplane ever built would be dangerous. Including Cirrus. And who do they market to.....
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
Not that I have done it, but it is also quite possible to recover from an inadvertent spin in a Cirrus, as shown by the JAA certification.
Not that I have done it, but it is also quite possible to recover from an inadvertent spin in a Cirrus, as shown by the JAA certification.
Blip16
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
when we did cirrus training we were taught that for certification it was tested in a 1 turn spin and the recovery method they used was to pull the chute. which is why the manual says that is the recovery procedure. it had to be tested, and that is how they tested it.
when we did cirrus training we were taught that for certification it was tested in a 1 turn spin and the recovery method they used was to pull the chute. which is why the manual says that is the recovery procedure. it had to be tested, and that is how they tested it.
WacoFan
Bigly
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
This may be a misplaced question, or simply stupid...not sure which, if either.
Do pilots attracted to the chute in the Cirrus lack the total confidence that pilots flying non-BRS equiped planes have? I ask because throughout aviation there have been "safe" planes (the Ercoupe comes to mind). People still ended up killing themselves in Ercouples and I wonder if it is a combination of someone that a) Doesn't have confidence, b) has a misplaced trust that the airplane wont kill him, and c) perhaps instructors teach to a different standard in "safe" airplanes?
I believe Columbia (now Cessna) taught people advanced manuevering and unusual attitude recovery in their machines. How have the Columbia's fared in comparison the Cirri being that they have similiar performance. Is the training provided by Columbia a greater safety feature than the BRS chute?
This may be a misplaced question, or simply stupid...not sure which, if either.
Do pilots attracted to the chute in the Cirrus lack the total confidence that pilots flying non-BRS equiped planes have? I ask because throughout aviation there have been "safe" planes (the Ercoupe comes to mind). People still ended up killing themselves in Ercouples and I wonder if it is a combination of someone that a) Doesn't have confidence, b) has a misplaced trust that the airplane wont kill him, and c) perhaps instructors teach to a different standard in "safe" airplanes?
I believe Columbia (now Cessna) taught people advanced manuevering and unusual attitude recovery in their machines. How have the Columbia's fared in comparison the Cirri being that they have similiar performance. Is the training provided by Columbia a greater safety feature than the BRS chute?
ozone
Well-Known Member
Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes
That's the question I was asking. I kinda figured that there might be some sort of "safety ratio" out there like number of accidents/number of a type or model of airplane.
For example (just making up the numbers here BTW): 6 fatal accidents in cessna 172sp models from 1/1/2000 through 1/1/2009 due to the left strut falling off secondary to metal fatigue. Total number of cessna 172sp models = 6000. That would make the "accident ratio" 6/6000 or equal to 0.1%.
With a ratio like this, people would be able to make an informed decision as to the risk of dying from left strut loss in a cessna 172sp model. Likely, most folks would buy the cessna with this ratio since they would say to themselves "well, metal fatigue in the strut is pretty rare, and anyway everyone at jetcareers.com always says that there are no safe planes, just safe pilots so I can probably figure out a way to land the plane safely even if the strut falls off"
That's the question I was asking. I kinda figured that there might be some sort of "safety ratio" out there like number of accidents/number of a type or model of airplane.
For example (just making up the numbers here BTW): 6 fatal accidents in cessna 172sp models from 1/1/2000 through 1/1/2009 due to the left strut falling off secondary to metal fatigue. Total number of cessna 172sp models = 6000. That would make the "accident ratio" 6/6000 or equal to 0.1%.
With a ratio like this, people would be able to make an informed decision as to the risk of dying from left strut loss in a cessna 172sp model. Likely, most folks would buy the cessna with this ratio since they would say to themselves "well, metal fatigue in the strut is pretty rare, and anyway everyone at jetcareers.com always says that there are no safe planes, just safe pilots so I can probably figure out a way to land the plane safely even if the strut falls off"