|
on the left posted:From the article in the OP, there are about 4800 planes with the system, and there have been 23 pulls. Of those 23 pulls, 5 of them still resulted in injuries or fatalities. So if you pull the parachute, you are still looking at a 20-25% chance of still having a bad crash. That is definitely not the right number; the Cirrus-brand system alone has seen double that number of pulls, and I'm seeing 200 or more pulls for all BRS systems combined. PT6A posted:On what basis can they determine the number of lives saved? Is that the number of people on board flights where the parachute has been deployed? Is it adjusted by a factor representing how likely people are to be involved in fatal accidents in situations where the parachute was pulled? Considering that the parachute is presumably only being deployed when the pilot feels they cannot safely land the plane, I don't think there's any particular reason to doubt it. The consequences of a pull are too high to do so if you're not pretty drat sure you're in trouble. Incidentally, this website keeps a record of BRS deployments, the reasons, and the number of people involved. Some of them were for dumb reasons like "improper part installation" or "pilot wasn't paying attention and lost control", but I also see quite a few issues like "wing failure", "engine failure over unlandable terrain", "structural failure", "loss of control in violent weather", and even a few pilots who were incapacitated by medical issues rendering them unable to competently pilot the plane.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If BRS systems made small planes useless then one would expect Cirrus to have gone out of business from decades of selling only BRS-equipped planes. Instead, Cirruses seem quite popular, so apparently the parachute system isn't as bad as you're portraying it! Installing it at the factory is a lot different than requiring aftermarket retrofits on all existing aircraft. The economics play out much differently in that case - you have manufacturer-level economies of scale which lower the cost of the BRS, you are factoring the cost of the BRS against a new $200k aircraft instead of a $20k used aircraft, and there's a much longer lifespan to amortize that cost. Doesn't help the payload problem, though. Small aircraft are usually pretty tight on payload to begin with, a fully fueled Cessna 152 has a 379-lb payload - that's 2 adults. Now you're talking about making other tradeoffs that could also potentially affect safety, like taking off with a half load of fuel. So now you've lost the capability to wait out bad weather with your endurance, and so on. Moreover there's sort of an attitude here that if something could potentially improve safety then we should mandate it, which just doesn't make sense in the context of a system as carefully balanced as an aircraft's flight characteristics. Everything costs weight, weight gives the aircraft more inertia (relevant in crashes, etc) and worsens the flight characteristics (making crashes more likely in the first place). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
It's kind of funny that there's all this emphasis on parachutes when the FAA still doesn't certify Antonov AN-2 biplanes, an aircraft that is literally capable of parachuting itself down to the ground. No listed stall speed, the emergency landing procedure reads: quote:"If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph), and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground." Given that pilots are reporting reductions in flight hours (which directly translate into "competency to fly the aircraft") it would be much more productive to look at tighter regulations on "high-performance" light aircraft, like more minimum flight hours to keep certified or something, and generally try to steer people to aircraft that are more forgiving. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Moreover there's sort of an attitude here that if something could potentially improve safety then we should mandate it, which just doesn't make sense in the context of a system as carefully balanced as an aircraft's flight characteristics. Everything costs weight, weight gives the aircraft more inertia (relevant in crashes, etc) and worsens the flight characteristics (making crashes more likely in the first place). I really don't think anyone is doing that. The only real argument had been that experts should weigh the benefits, and that complaints of safety equipment being too pricey for the middle class can gently caress right off if innocent lives will be saved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Trent posted:I really don't think anyone is doing that. The only real argument had been that experts should weigh the benefits, and that complaints of safety equipment being too pricey for the middle class can gently caress right off if innocent lives will be saved. There has absolutely been a trend where people in this thread paint pilots as reckless risk-takers who are obstinately refusing to install a safety device that is clearly and obviously beneficial, as judged by armchair Internet Pilots who probably have never stepped foot in a Cessna in their lives. Dr. Stab posted:There doesn't seem to be any real argument except for general anti-safety arguments. E-Tank posted:You could take that argument and apply it to anything. Same with the insurance policy bit. ErIog posted:The pilot and plane do not exist in a vacuum. Pilots frequently have passengers. When planes crash they have a chance of crashing on top of poo poo and injuring/killing people. If the parachutes help mitigate the damage to other people who are not the pilot when incidents occur then they are worthwhile no matter how the pilot feels about it. I can go on if I need. Seatbelts don't take up 1/4 of your car's payload. Let's say we require that all cars need to carry around 500 to 2000lbs of spare parts, depending on vehicle type, in case you break down in the middle of nowhere and need some parts. Do you think people would go along with that? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There has absolutely been a trend where people in this thread paint pilots as reckless risk-takers who are obstinately refusing to install a safety device that is clearly and obviously beneficial, as judged by armchair Internet Pilots who probably have never stepped foot in a Cessna in their lives. How else would you respond to the argument that "well, if they had to use a parachute they shouldn't have been flying a plane in the first place!". This isn't about BIG FAA mandating the use of BRS systems, but with hobby pilots in this thread disdaining their use by anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:How else would you respond to the argument that "well, if they had to use a parachute they shouldn't have been flying a plane in the first place!" Can you actually quote that response? I suspect this is what you're taking away from a slightly different message, which is risk avoidance. An awful lot of accidents involve people putting themselves into dangerous situations in which they eventually lose control. That's the major cause of accidents that don't occur on takeoff or landing (where people tend to stall out without altitude to recover, and where parachutes don't work). Basically think of this like drunk driving - sure, a seatbelt helps a drunk driver survive a crash, but exactly how far are we going to go with the whole reactive defense measures? All the safety measures in the world don't do poo poo to protect the people around you when your vehicle careens to a halt. Aircraft included - a 1-ton Cessna is a hell of a thing to hit your head on even if it's "only" falling at 30 feet/sec (20 mph). At some point you have to get proactive and say that you're not competent to control your vehicle in these circumstances, and you need to avoid them. At the end of the day, the best safety measure is to look at the weather forecast and decide that maybe you're not going for a joyride today. You wouldn't drive into a blizzard, whether or not your vehicle has airbags. And an aircraft is - and always will be - a much more delicate and easily-broken vehicle than a car, and one that takes much more skill and ongoing experience to operate even under the best of conditions. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Can you actually quote that response? From the very first page: Job Truniht posted:That's not the case. If you get into a situation, as a private pilot, where you have to deploy the chute, you probably shouldn't be a pilot. The last thing general aviation needs is more young rich people in flying around with their parachute planes causing accidents left and right thanks to some vague mental false equivalency of driving a car. Again, at no point have these systems been mandated or required, so there is zero equivalency to seatbelts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:From the very first page: Yeah and here's the rest of the post that you didn't quote: quote:1) It is dangerous. Here's the FAA's list: quote:#1 - Loss Of Control In Flight (environmental conditions, experience, sensory perception) Out of their top 10 causes of accidents, 5 of them boil down to "pilot was doing something dumb" - flying an aircraft type or in conditions that he wasn't experienced or certified to handle, flying into bad weather, taking off without enough fuel, etc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Out of their top 10 causes of accidents, 5 of them boil down to "pilot was doing something dumb" - flying in conditions that he wasn't experienced or certified to handle, taking off without enough fuel, etc. Pilot error =/= unqualified pilots Really, the opposition to BRS is uncomfortably similar to the NRA opposition to the manufacture of smart guns. People are literally scared of companies creating safety features because then the Big Bad Government might mandate them. EDIT: And let's forget the last few pages, because that derail was started by a single particuarly stupid comment (as it was provably untrue): MrYenko posted:Aircraft are only rich mens' toys if you consider a rich man to be anyone living above the loving poverty line. The whole "gently caress him, he can afford an airplane, soak him every time we need to change something" line is killing GA in the states. If you have the inclination, you can own and maintain an airplane for less than most people pay for their new car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Pilot error =/= unqualified pilots In many cases it is, though. Shooting an instrument approach when you're not IFR isn't "pilot error". Taking off into bad weather conditions when you're not IFR isn't "pilot error". Failing to meet basic competencies of your certification level is also demonstration of lack of qualification - you're supposed to be able to fly at night or calculate how much gas you need to fly the goddamn airplane, and if you can't do that then you're not qualified to fly the airplane even if you have the piece of paper that claims you are qualified. There's a point where it crosses from "pilot error" and "oops I'm in a bad situation" into "being incompetent to perform the basic tasks of operating the aircraft" and "doing things you have no business doing", and most accidents are caused by people falling into those categories. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In many cases it is, though. Shooting an instrument approach when you're not IFR isn't "pilot error". Taking off into bad weather conditions when you're not IFR isn't "pilot error". Failing to meet basic competencies of your certification level is also demonstration of lack of qualification - you're supposed to be able to fly at night or calculate how much gas you need to fly the goddamn airplane, and if you can't do that then you're not qualified to fly the airplane even if you have the piece of paper that claims you are qualified. Pilot error is only relevant to anything in this thread if you can prove that having a safer airplane leads to more pilot errors. And a limited number of anecdotes won't ever prove that, so... And please don't skip the important part: Slanderer posted:Really, the opposition to BRS is uncomfortably similar to the NRA opposition to the manufacture of smart guns. People are literally scared of companies creating safety features because then the Big Bad Government might mandate them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:And please don't skip the important part: See, that's not important, because it's a strawman. When has anyone threatened to bomb BRS to stop them from producing their parachutes? That actually happened to the people making smart guns, whereas you're just having some kind of a fever dream or delusions or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:See, that's not important, because it's a strawman. When has anyone threatened to bomb BRS to stop them from producing their parachutes? That actually happened to the people making smart guns, whereas you're just having some kind of a fever dream or delusions or something. Paul MaudDib posted:Moreover there's sort of an attitude here that if something could potentially improve safety then we should mandate it, which just doesn't make sense in the context of a system as carefully balanced as an aircraft's flight characteristics. Everything costs weight, weight gives the aircraft more inertia (relevant in crashes, etc) and worsens the flight characteristics (making crashes more likely in the first place). No one is mandating this, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
I love how everything I wrote ITT has been ignored by pretty much everybody making ill-informed arguments I mean its not like i am literally an expert in this field or anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I love how everything I wrote ITT has been ignored by pretty much everybody making ill-informed arguments Hello and welcome to D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah and here's the rest of the post that you didn't quote: This is true, but does not change the need for safety equipment. No matter how much training or licensing or regulation is in place for a thing, "just make sure nobody ever makes mistakes or acts carelessly or experiences any kind of human or mechanical error" has never ever been found to be an effective safety principle by itself. And no, outright obvious incompetence is still "pilot error". Trying to enforce some kind of distinction between acceptable "mistakes that crash the plane" and unacceptable ones is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
This safety equipment is useless as it is only useful when someone messes up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is true, but does not change the need for safety equipment. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that this particular piece of safety equipment addresses the problems, or is sufficiently effective that it should be mandated as a retrofit. quote:No matter how much training or licensing or regulation is in place for a thing, "just make sure nobody ever makes mistakes or acts carelessly or experiences any kind of human or mechanical error" has never ever been found to be an effective safety principle by itself. A full 80% of accidents have pilot-related causes, and 87% of those pilot-related accidents boil down to either a basic inability to fly the aircraft (takeoff, land, maneuver) or a basic inability to act as pilot-in-command (manage fuel, weather conditions, etc). There actually is a useful distinction to be made between "pilot error" and "incompetence to operate the aircraft". To quote MrChips earlier on the Cirrus and Mitsubishi commuter jet aircraft, both of those aircraft had horrendous safety records until their training programs were rectified, and now they're some of the safest aircraft out there. When a straight-up 70% of all fatal accidents are caused by "pilot is incompetent to operate the aircraft" it's not just pilot error, it's a systemic deficiency in training and certification. Treating the symptoms is ultimately a losing game. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Basically think of this like drunk driving - sure, a seatbelt helps a drunk driver survive a crash, but exactly how far are we going to go with the whole reactive defense measures? All the safety measures in the world don't do poo poo to protect the people around you when your vehicle careens to a halt. Aircraft included - a 1-ton Cessna is a hell of a thing to hit your head on even if it's "only" falling at 30 feet/sec (20 mph). At some point you have to get proactive and say that you're not competent to control your vehicle in these circumstances, and you need to avoid them. Unless the wings literally fall off (and sometimes even then  , look up the one-winged F-15 on youtube) it's always better to keep what little control you have of an airplane and try to land it in a safe place than to use a parachute, which puts it at the mercy of the wind (or, for larger planes, Newton's laws).Military ejection seats are similar, if more dramatic -- the package includes the pilot in the ballistic bit, and there's a splash effect from the plane hitting -- but in both cases, once you punch only God controls the plane, and you're just as likely to be killed/crippled in the process (though on ejection you get the 9Gs telescoping your spine on the exit, rather than the landing). Yet there are many military pilots who knew their plane was hosed and should have, by all rules of agency procedure and self preservation, ejected as soon as the they knew the situation was unrecoverable, but rode it in and died in a last-ditch attempt to steer it away from people on the ground, along with a lot more who made sure it was pointed away from anything and did manage to get out it time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 23:17
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Slanderer posted:Pilot error =/= unqualified pilots The NRA opposes smart guns because they are a useless feel-good gimmick that do nothing to save lives or prevent crime. Not really comparable to BRS, which, while of questionable utility a lot of the time, doesn't seem like it would be a terrible idea on certain small plane designs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What prevents this argument from being used against basically every safety system in existence? Safety systems, rules, and regulations exist primarily because people who were aware of the risks and really ought to have known better ended up loving up and killing themselves, often endangering others as well. This is why there's a field called risk analysis. You simply have to draw a line somewhere because there's always tradeoffs and other issues. Kaal posted:Is that how they're counting it? It doesn't appear that either of us know how they came up with that figure. It's pretty safe to say the company is going to use the biggest number that's remotely justifiable. e: like GA is already much more dangerous than other forms of flying. Why aren't people arguing to mandate this system arguing to massively increase the requirements to become a GA pilot? Doing so would undoubtedly save lives at the cost of making flying unaffordable to nearly everyone but the 1% (and would save far more lives than AP's). tsa fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Or we could save tons of lives by mandating that all cars driven have the latest safety technology available. After all, while it may make driving unaffordable it would certainly save lives so I don't know how anyone could be against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Training could be a lot more stringent, though, as it is in Canada I'm discovering. Looking at a US syllabus for a private pilot license course and regulations, it seems that, for example, VFR Over-The-Top and night flying are including in standard training whereas they'd be a separate, more in-depth rating in Canada, and the training to use instruments in an emergency only, so you can unfuck yourself if you've already screwed up seems to be limited to a single flight lesson, whereas it's two or three in Canada. I absolutely think more training is a more valuable place to spend money and other resources than BRSs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Would certainly save more lives than mandating BRS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
tsa posted:Would certainly save more lives than mandating BRS. Certainly. It would prevent a fraction of the crashes that could've been "solved" with the BRS, but it would also prevent a lot of crashes for which a BRS wouldn't really do a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Training could be a lot more stringent, though, as it is in Canada I'm discovering. Looking at a US syllabus for a private pilot license course and regulations, it seems that, for example, VFR Over-The-Top and night flying are including in standard training whereas they'd be a separate, more in-depth rating in Canada, and the training to use instruments in an emergency only, so you can unfuck yourself if you've already screwed up seems to be limited to a single flight lesson, whereas it's two or three in Canada. I absolutely think more training is a more valuable place to spend money and other resources than BRSs. Is there some reason we can't do both? Paul MaudDib posted:Agreed, but that doesn't mean that this particular piece of safety equipment addresses the problems, or is sufficiently effective that it should be mandated as a retrofit. Is your contention here that those people deserved to die because they made a mistake? Your attitude is precious. It's the same "it won't happen to me," kind of thinking I hear from children. It's a lot of, "those people were bad drivers, but I'm a good driver so..." People are not computers. People make mistakes. Even if we increase licensing standards(something we probably should do), hobbyists are still going to make bad decisions simply because they don't have enough experience. I don't see why it's unreasonable to install a system to mitigate harm on light aircraft, the kind of planes that people who are more likely to make mistakes might be flying. You people were all QQ'ing about how installing a parachute would prevent so many people from flying somehow, but then a few pages later laying out that your solution is to prevent people from flying through stricter licensing requirements that will magically eliminate people making mistakes. MrChips posted:I love how everything I wrote ITT has been ignored by pretty much everybody making ill-informed arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority This is the internet. Do you not understand how it works? It's impossible to verify whether or not you actually are an expert, and so you have to make some kind of valid argument that's supported by logic and coherent with regard to reality. It's telling that your fallback position is, "I'M AN EXPERT! LISTEN TO ME!" For all you know, people in this thread arguing for more widespread usage of BRS are experts too. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Is there some reason we can't do both? We could do a lot of things. The question is whether we should do them, and whether they would be cost-effective. I think mandating additional training on instrument flight, and giving more instruction on night and VFR-OTT would probably deliver a much better bang for the buck than mandating AFPs in terms of lives saved, and feasibility. I'm not arguing that AFPs be banned, and I don't think they're a horrible idea provided they don't lead people to be more careless (which would not be a reason to ban them, but something a good pilot would recognize as a risk factor in their own performance and mitigate), I'm just saying they shouldn't be mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Is your contention here that those people deserved to die because they made a mistake? It's not so much the amount of instruction as the quality of instruction. A lot of CFI's don't give a poo poo about the job, and they just want to use it to build hours. That way they can get into a shiny jet. This accident was before the 1200hr ATP rule, and I'm sure the quality of instruction has gone down since it's been enacted. A great instructor is not just one that can fly the PTS standards and ace exams. ErIog posted:People are not computers. People make mistakes. Even if we increase licensing standards(something we probably should do), hobbyists are still going to make bad decisions simply because they don't have enough experience. I don't see why it's unreasonable to install a system to mitigate harm on light aircraft, the kind of planes that people who are more likely to make mistakes might be flying. ErIog posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority He's made well reasoned, logically explained and well researched arguments that have been ignored. You are the person that equated them to seat belts. In some of the aircraft I've flown with a BRS, one can't even fill the tanks up all the way with two passengers on-board. This is with two relatively small, 120-150lb each, people. Goodbye any camping equipment or overnight bags. These aren't scheduled transportation devices, but someone can try and plan a weekend trip camping at a fly-in. If the weather turns bad, welcome to BFE municipal airport. It's just part of the adventure. Entone fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Training could be a lot more stringent, though, as it is in Canada I'm discovering. Looking at a US syllabus for a private pilot license course and regulations, it seems that, for example, VFR Over-The-Top and night flying are including in standard training whereas they'd be a separate, more in-depth rating in Canada, and the training to use instruments in an emergency only, so you can unfuck yourself if you've already screwed up seems to be limited to a single flight lesson, whereas it's two or three in Canada. I absolutely think more training is a more valuable place to spend money and other resources than BRSs. Do you think increasing PPL instrument training requirements poses the same risk of a BRS? I.e., a BRS allows people to play with conditions they shouldn't because they have a get out of jail free button, more time under the hood might make people less careful around clouds because they feel better equipped to get themselves out of trouble. My inclination is that more training is always good, but the argument can at least be formulated the same as in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
The analogy I use regarding aviation training comes from the kitchen. If you're a crappy, inattentive chef, going out and buying a $5000 Wolff convection oven isn't going to stop you from ruining that expensive hunk of prime rib. Buying a $10 kitchen timer and some cooking classes will. BRS is a reactive safety system; it doesn't prevent you from getting into trouble and will only save your life once you are so deep into trouble that it is your only chance at a safe outcome. Spending the money on better training and more (or in the case of a lot of private pilots, any amount) or recurrent training will make a dramatic difference in the safety record of general aviation. Coming from a commercial background, I often find it shocking just how complacent and lax an overwhelming majority of private pilots become in the ensuing years after their training. Things like adherence to proper procedure, following checklists, proper flight planning and the like are lost on a shockingly large number of these people. Hell, I remember one guy I (almost) flew with many years ago ask me incredulously, "do you really do a walk-around before every flight?!". Like I said, almost flew with him. More and better training, combined with much more rigorous testing (on the commercial side, I do a flight test once a year, and the consequences of failure are pretty high) will go much further in reducing the GA accident rate than anything else. Its is merely a matter of how to devote resources in order to maximize the return. Why spend the money on a completely reactive solution, while doing nothing to solve the underlying problem, when spending a like amount of resources on the underlying problem might have a far more profound result? ErIog posted:
Yes I know how the internet works. I also haven't called you out on your intelligence, or your own use of logical fallacy in the very post you call.me out for it, nor the fact you clearly haven't read anything I've said in this thread (nor anyone else who has argued against blindly mandating BRS) and summarily dismiss opposing viewpoints as being incoherent. So how about you come back with something meaningful, instead of just making GBS threads this thread up? MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Do you think increasing PPL instrument training requirements poses the same risk of a BRS? I.e., a BRS allows people to play with conditions they shouldn't because they have a get out of jail free button, more time under the hood might make people less careful around clouds because they feel better equipped to get themselves out of trouble. That's a valid point, but I would also say that there's probably plenty of idiot pilots that think they can fly in IMC because they totally do it all the time on MS Flight Simulator. I'd also say that, given none of the instrument instruction focuses on how to navigate or avoid obstacles, you would still have to be really, really goddamn stupid to fly into IMC on purpose without an IFR rating. It's pretty much solely so you don't go into a spiral dive and kill yourself immediately after flying into cloud. Given that the average non-IFR pilot will last about 180 seconds before that happens, I think it's worthwhile emergency skill to have. EDIT: Your mind plays lovely tricks on you, too. JFK Jr. actually recovered to straight and level flight with reference to instruments, but he then went back to what "felt" right and put his plane in the drink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Yeah inadvertent VFR into IMC is a bitch. I've lost five friends to cashes caused by that, all with experienced commercial pilots. I am not sure there is any amount of training that can overcome ego, get-home-itis, or thin profit margins in part 135 operators, at least for some pilots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah inadvertent VFR into IMC is a bitch. I've lost five friends to cashes caused by that, all with experienced commercial pilots. I am not sure there is any amount of training that can overcome ego, get-home-itis, or thin profit margins in part 135 operators, at least for some pilots. Did any of them have an IFR rating? It's theoretically possible to have a CPL without an IFR rating, but I'm not sure why anyone would. Going into IMC on a VFR flight plan would still be dangerous, but I would think (hopefully) IFR training would buy enough time to get a clearance and continue under IFR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Did any of them have an IFR rating? It's theoretically possible to have a CPL without an IFR rating, but I'm not sure why anyone would. Going into IMC on a VFR flight plan would still be dangerous, but I would think (hopefully) IFR training would buy enough time to get a clearance and continue under IFR. One did, one didn't. CPL without IFR is pretty common in Alaska bush aviation, because other than the big scheduled air guys like Everts, Wright, Era, etc., they don't fly IFR flight plans. The one with IFR did 't death spiral, it wound up being controlled flight into terrain as he was trying to find a hole in the mountains. The other probably spiraled into the ocean trying to climb through clouds to VFR on top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:One did, one didn't. CPL without IFR is pretty common in Alaska bush aviation, because other than the big scheduled air guys like Everts, Wright, Era, etc., they don't fly IFR flight plans. The one with IFR did 't death spiral, it wound up being controlled flight into terrain as he was trying to find a hole in the mountains. The other probably spiraled into the ocean trying to climb through clouds to VFR on top. Interesting. I'm not an expert, but I think IFR is more common up here. I don't think the college I trained at would give you a diploma without it. Most of our small airfields only have non-precision NDB approaches, but it's better than nothing. Edit: speaking personally, if I were to get back into flying as a hobby, which I will some day, my first stop after getting re-current would be to get an IFR rating, probably even before a night rating. Just like my instructors said: you don't have to file a flight plan, and it's more hassle, but it could save your life so suck it up and do it anyway. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You people were all QQ'ing about how installing a parachute would prevent so many people from flying somehow, but then a few pages later laying out that your solution is to prevent people from flying through stricter licensing requirements that will magically eliminate people making mistakes. Yes, because clearly either raising the money bar to entry or the safety bar to entry will prevent the same group of people from flying. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Motorcyclists have this conversation too. Usually it's the Harley guys who never ride that explain how not wearing a helmet is safer because it makes you a riskier rider. And they're really, really dumb, just like the people making that argument in here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Motorcyclists have this conversation too. Usually it's the Harley guys who never ride that explain how not wearing a helmet is safer because it makes you a riskier rider. And they're really, really dumb, just like the people making that argument in here. It's... not at all the same issue as helmets or seatbelts, though. It's much more expensive, it's going to result in significant damage to the aircraft upon use, it's flat-out infeasible to use in a lot of situations and/or with a lot of aircraft, and it removes most/all control the pilot has over the aircraft, which can increase the risk to people on the ground. It's not at all clear to me that having a BRS makes you a safer pilot in any sense -- a polar opposite of the situation with seatbelts/helmets/riding gear, so while I don't think BRSs should be banned, I don't think (at this point) they need to be anything more than an option for pilots who want them, who should then receive specialized additional training in their use and their possible effects on pilot decision-making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
PT6A posted:It's... not at all the same issue as helmets or seatbelts, though. It's much more expensive, it's going to result in significant damage to the aircraft upon use, it's flat-out infeasible to use in a lot of situations and/or with a lot of aircraft, and it removes most/all control the pilot has over the aircraft, which can increase the risk to people on the ground. It's not at all clear to me that having a BRS makes you a safer pilot in any sense -- a polar opposite of the situation with seatbelts/helmets/riding gear, so while I don't think BRSs should be banned, I don't think (at this point) they need to be anything more than an option for pilots who want them, who should then receive specialized additional training in their use and their possible effects on pilot decision-making. It's closer than you think. These systems are part of the plane, you can largely install and forget besides routine maintenance. Wearing a helmet adds weight to the head, increases wind resistance, good ones are proportionally as expensive as BRS systems, and they can increase injury in certain situations too. Point being that they're far, far more impactful to the rider on a day to day basis and yet, they're still worth it. I'm interested in how you think helmets make riders better, though, while BRS systems don't make pilots better. I'll say I don't feel more skilled when I don my lid, but maybe it really does beam skill into my brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:09
|
|