SR-22 parachute finally saves a pilot

jynxyjoe said:
Well, using your post for the vocabulary, I thought we were just talking about similar types of operations. The bonanza post, at least to me, indicated we are talking about a private owner of a cirrus. One private owner versus another I think hours is a good way to judge their experience levels. I think you are getting into commercial pilots versus weekend warriors and that's in a whole other vein that doesn't have to do with the thread. If you want to include all pilots in the discussion we hijack the thread. Speaking about Cirrus owners only, the non commercial type, the more hours the better and the risker the pilot, the more likely he is to Darwin himself out of the picture.
Click to expand...


I was trying to cover both aspects....the apples to apples vs the apples to oranges. Apples to apples, I was agreeing that TT can be a good primary indicator....ie- private pilot vs private pilot. Apples to oranges, not so much for obvious reasons stated here. That's why I was saying it depends, in order to speak to both bases, generally speaking.
 
MikeD said:
I was trying to cover both aspects....the apples to apples vs the apples to oranges. Apples to apples, I was agreeing that TT can be a good primary indicator....ie- private pilot vs private pilot. Apples to oranges, not so much for obvious reasons stated here. That's why I was saying it depends, in order to speak to both bases, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I think this conversation is talking about private pilots. The post I replied to, the one you quoted (and mini sorta) was talking about the bonanza. I think if we get on commercial pilot vs weekend warrior this thing is just going to spiral out of focus.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I don't disagree. I think this conversation is talking about private pilots. The post I replied to, the one you quoted (and mini sorta) was talking about the bonanza. I think if we get on commercial pilot vs weekend warrior this thing is just going to spiral out of focus.
Click to expand...

I agree; and that's what I was saying. For one comparison, the equation works; for another comparison, it may not. Was just making that one distinction so someone doesn't think one way of doing the comparison applies across the board. That's why the "it depends". For our purposes here, it's a fairly accurate comparison.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Insurance companies, which have the best and most reliable sort of motive to care, seem to disagree.
Click to expand...

I have said this for a while and I will repeat here:

The world should have actuaries as its ombudsman. Better yet, actuaries should simply run things.

I believe one of the reasons the American people end up with the idiots we have in elected office, as well as thief's and bastards running our other institutions (businesses, media, etc, etc) is because the American populace is by and large innumerate.
 
jynxyjoe said:
In my experience some of the most dangerous guys are the ones who are system nuts, but for different reasons. I think it's possible that a systems nut would make a better decision on when to pull the chute. I think it is more likely any average pilot, with average systems knowledge, who has been trained and continued his/her education afterwards is going to beat both of your examples above at decision making 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with you. Being a good troubleshooter does not necessarily help one make good decisions. I have an A&P cert and I've felt the pressure to push onward (oh, let's see what I can try to make it work) because I think I know what's going on. In the same situation your average pilot says, "it's not working, I'm going back".
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
OR...
Bad decision making, which violates the terms of the insurance policy = no payout.
Click to expand...

Man, wheels within wheels. Are you suggesting that the insurance actuaries have factored in that high-time pilots tend to make decisions so amazingly stupid that no payouts will be necessary, and thus have adjusted the rates downwards for high-timers, whilst laughing down their sleeves?

I wouldn't put it past them, but the simplest answer tends to be correct, imho.

Obviously, the primary factor is the pilot, regardless of experience, no argument. But I'm a slightly better pilot now than I was 1000 hours ago. I'll be a slightly better pilot in another 1000 than I am now (if I live that long...my baseline is extremely low as anyone who's flown with me will attest.) It seems ludicrous to me to suggest otherwise. I'm sure Bob Hoover was a better pilot at 100 hours than I'll ever be, but all other things being equal...the numbers don't lie.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
When a Cirrus sales/demo pilot landed out of low overcast skies, light drizzle and temperatures hovering around freezing, then taxied onto a ramp full of corporate jets laden with icicles hanging from the wings, I lost all respect for the company and their kool-aid serving culture. When the same sales/demo pilot did the same thing again the next day, I wanted to ask him what kind of image he was trying to portray. I'm trying to run a safety-minded flight department here, and my boss was standing there with a look that said "if he can do it, why can't you?" Thanks Cirrus, you're all true professionals that really do care about your sheep, I mean customers, arriving safely.

The first time I saw an ad on the inside cover of an "elitist" magazine in the FBO, I knew what kind of company Cirrus was. What is the need of claiming that a Cirrus has "four first class airline seats"? Makes me think I don't have to do any work when I'm flying along in that thing. After all, if I'm in a first class airline seat, there are those two monkeys on the other side of that steel door that do everything for me. They're out to get that rich man that has to arrive in style (its a single engine airplane for Christ sake) but doesn't know jack splat about aircraft.

Cirrus can go to hell for all I care.
Click to expand...

You cant blame Cirrus for trying to make more money, A Columbia 400 salesman came the other day painting the same picture as you just described. They are out to make money, and they got the plane to do it too.

And your the type of guy that I was talking about in my earlier post. There was a 182 pilot that just landed here in the Rockies with 2 inches of ice, he fueled, and took right off again. Im not gonna paint all 182 pilots like that, and not gonna tell Cessna to go to hell.

And the Cirrus factory training does a good job at making sure their pilots DO know their aircraft inside and out. (At least the pilots I flown with) And everything is standardized. Thats a lot more to be said then other companies. I know that Cirrus likes to brag on this fact, and they sure do charge big bucks too. But I guess thats what the market is calling for, and why they are selling more GA aircraft then anyone else.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Man, wheels within wheels. Are you suggesting that the insurance actuaries have factored in that high-time pilots tend to make decisions so amazingly stupid that no payouts will be necessary, and thus have adjusted the rates downwards for high-timers, whilst laughing down their sleeves?
Click to expand...

Example 1:

Corporate flight department contracts two pilots to fly a high performance turbojet aircraft. They are not specifically named on the insurance policy, and therefore must meet the "open pilot clause" specified within the policy.

Captain has 24,000 TT, is typed rated with 3,000 hours in type, and meets all criteria of the clause.

F/O has 1200 TT, is not type rated but has been to FSI, and does not meet all criteria of the clause.

Captain has been in corporate aviation for 25 years, so is very aware that the F/O probably does not meet the insurance requirements. He questions the aircraft operator about this, but is told to not worry about it. The F/O is a close friend who he is trying to assist in advancing his career, so he agrees to take the trip.

On landing at the destination, aircraft runs off the end off the end of the runway, causing substantial damage. Aircraft is totaled. Insurance refuses to pay out. Why? The F/O was did not meet the requirements of the open pilot clause and the captain made the decision to fly the trip even though insurance coverage was in question. The operator of the aircraft sues the pilot to recover the value of the aircraft. A 24,000 hour pilot made a poor decision that cost him 4 million dollars.

Example 2:

Recreational pilot owns a 1/2 share of a V-35 Bonanza. He has 6,000 TT, 250 actual instrument and 3000 in type. Pilot plans a business related XC trip in inclement weather. On approach, pilot experiences mechanical difficulty and crashes 4 miles short of the runway at his diversion airport. During the accident investigation, it is discovered that the pilot did not posses an instrument rating. Insurance refuses to pay out, and the wife of the pilot is sued by the family that owned the other 1/2 share of the aircraft to recover the value of the aircraft. She must declare bankruptcy to protect herself and becomes a victim of her husband's poor decision to knowingly fly in IMC without an instrument ticket.

The latter example is a true story.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Example 2)

Recreational pilot owns a 1/2 share of a V-35 Bonanza. He has 6,000 TT, 250 actual instrument and 3000 in type. Pilot plans a business related XC trip in inclement weather. On approach, pilot experiences mechanical difficulty and crashes 4 miles short of the runway at his diversion airport. Insurance refuses to pay out, and the wife of the pilot is sued by the family that owned the other 1/2 share of the aircraft to recover the value of the aircraft. She must declare bankruptcy to protect herself and becomes a victim of her husband's poor decision to knowingly fly in IMC without an instrument ticket.

The latter example is a true story.
Click to expand...

Wow.....made it to 250 actual without an Instrument ticket before he morted himself? Not bad....why not just get the darn ticket if he had the ability....at least for 250 hours.
 
Sure. Man, if you want stories of people with fat logbooks making dumb decisions, we should start a different thread. I'll tell the first story and it will be about me. I believe the original claim, though, was that there wasn't a correlation between TT and making good decisions. No one is making the claim that TT is the sole arbiter, or even the most important, but to suggest that there is no correlation flies in the face not only of common sense, but of Waco's sainted Actuaries in their windowless rooms working away on their abacuses (abaci?)
 
Boris Badenov said:
Sure. Man, if you want stories of people with fat logbooks making dumb decisions, we should start a different thread. I'll tell the first story and it will be about me. I believe the original claim, though, was that there wasn't a correlation between TT and making good decisions. No one is making the claim that TT is the sole arbiter, or even the most important, but to suggest that there is no correlation flies in the face not only of common sense, but of Waco's sainted Actuaries in their windowless rooms working away on their abacuses (abaci?)
Click to expand...

If I could have 100 actuaries working in a windowless room at my behest...and a white Persian cat, I could be a Bond villian.
 
MikeD said:
Wow.....made it to 250 actual without an Instrument ticket before he morted himself? Not bad....why not just get the darn ticket if he had the ability....at least for 250 hours.
Click to expand...

I was wrong. I confused him with another story that I heard. According to the factual NTSB report, he had 506 hours, 450 in type, and 31.5 actual instrument. This goes to show that no matter the experience level, pilots make stupid mistakes, and it isn't always a bold decision to have blatant disregard for the limitations of the aircraft (operating in icing conditions, aerobatics, etc).

It would be nice to know at what hour mark the attitude goes from "I can handle anything (because I don't know any better); I'm bulletproof" to "I can handle it because I've done it (gotten away with it) before." Then we'd all know how to protect ourselves from ourselves.
 
Boris Badenov said:
No one is making the claim that TT is the sole arbiter, or even the most important, but to suggest that there is no correlation flies in the face not only of common sense....
Click to expand...

Shack. And the point I was trying to make. In a general sense, it's true (again generally, not 100% of the time); esp when comparing apples to apples. In an apples to oranges example, it might not be.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
I was wrong. I confused him with another story that I heard. According to the factual NTSB report, he had 506 hours, 450 in type, and 31.5 actual instrument. This goes to show that no matter the experience level, pilots make stupid mistakes, and it isn't always a bold decision to have blatant disregard for the limitations of the aircraft (operating in icing conditions, aerobatics, etc).
Click to expand...

LOL....ok. I was going to say wow at that. Wouldve been impressive!
 
This some good info/discussion about the Cirrus.

I wanted to ask you guys that might know, end of summer/1st of fall of 08, a SR 22 flying with 3 ppl on board crashed for unknown reason southwest of the Shreveport area. If I remember correctly, the flight orginated out of Tenn or Northern Ala and was heading somewhere around the Houston area. The Cirrus went down for unknown reasons on the texas side of Toledo Bend Lake, around the same area of E.Texas where a major part of the shuttle Columbia was found. Apparently there was no distress call from the pilot and no chute deployment.

As quick as this story came out, it went away just as fast and there was never a outcome of the NTSB findings, at least it wasn't reported by any of the local news outlets here. Any of you guys know?
 
Area 5150 said:
This some good info/discussion about the Cirrus.

I wanted to ask you guys that might know, end of summer/1st of fall of 08, a SR 22 flying with 3 ppl on board crashed for unknown reason southwest of the Shreveport area. If I remember correctly, the flight orginated out of Tenn or Northern Ala and was heading somewhere around the Houston area. The Cirrus went down for unknown reasons on the texas side of Toledo Bend Lake, around the same area of E.Texas where a major part of the shuttle Columbia was found. Apparently there was no distress call from the pilot and no chute deployment.

As quick as this story came out, it went away just as fast and there was never a outcome of the NTSB findings, at least it wasn't reported by any of the local news outlets here. Any of you guys know?
Click to expand...

CO poisoning. He was based here at DWH and was on his way back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top