|
I don't expect this topic will get a whole lot of traction, but we were arguing about this in the OSHA.jpg thread and I thought it might make a better D&D thread than picture-thread derail. An airframe parachute (AP) is a parachute for an entire plane. If you're flying your plane and the engine stops, or you lose a wing, or you think you're having a heart attack, you simply slow the aircraft, pop the AP, and embrace a slow but uncontrolled descent back to the surly bonds of Earth. Here's a picture of someone using one:  And a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX-QUVen9Ng I didn't know until recently that APs were a controversial subject. At first glance, APs seems great because they appear to work well, they provide a last-ditch option to save the lives of those both onboard the plane and on the ground, and safety is necessarily a priority concern for anything relating to human flight. When I read someone wishing ill upon pilots who use or want to use airframe parachutes, I laughed. After thinking about it, though, I think I've changed my mind. Here is a brief article that introduces some of the controversy about APs. A couple of points I'll try to isolate about the anti-AP sentiment:
Additionally, and this is admittedly something of a slippery-slope argument, regulators or insurance companies could, partly because of AP availability and/or lobbying, begin to require pilots to ditch their planes for minor emergencies. In the article above, a man popped his AP because he realized an aileron hinge was damaged or missing. His controls felt weird and he didn't have the confidence to land his plane. I don't know the guy, and I wasn't there, but it really surprises me he dumped his plane over that. He must be rich. One of at least four control surfaces malfunctions, so you pop the AP because you have the option, and that begs the question, where is the threshold? At what level of emergency will my insurance company or the FAA tell me it's no longer appropriate to try to land the plane as opposed to giving up on it? Some people compare anti-AP sentiment to anti-seatbelt or anti-airbag sentiment. I can agree with that. Admittedly, if I'd had the option to save three thousand bucks on my car and forego the airbags, I would have. What's it to you? Don't ride with me if you don't like it. Aircraft are already so expensive to buy and maintain, the possibility that additional expensive, complex, heavy equipment may become required on planes scares a lot of pilots and aircraft owners. One last thing. There's a pull-knob in the cockpit of almost every piston-driven aircraft. It's for carburetor heat. You're supposed to use it on descent, to keep your carburetor from icing up and your engine from quitting. If you don't pull the knob, there is a significantly increased probability your engine will stop and you'll crash into an orphanage. Automating this knob-pull would be pretty easy. An automatic carb-heat-on-descent system would probably save lives. The reason systems like this don't exist, or at least aren't prevalent, is that they would increase operating/maintenance expenses, increase weight, and disconnect the pilot from needing to know how his plane works. Just like an AP. Every activity has a level of risk. Do you think the AP concept is closer to a seatbelt in a car, or a helmet for checking your mail? Feel free to talk about other safety stuff here too. Please keep in mind that I'm not personally a fervent proponent for or against APs. I spent a lot of time on the "against" in this OP because it's the far-less-obvious argument than "plane crashes kill people." I look forward to seeing what smart goons think. Edit: someone below pointed out that the correct term for airframe parachutes is Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). Thanks! theres a will theres moe fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 6, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Sounds like the arguments for not providing a parachute to pilots in WW1, why they'd just ditch their planes at the first sign of trouble! Where's your fighting spirit man? Here, have a revolver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
My posting from the OSHA thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk BRS website ( http://www.brsparachutes.com/ ) claims 312 lives saved and over 30,000 systems installed. An average of one life saved per 100 installs is an incredibly good record. In addition, they could save lives on the ground. A plane made an emergency landing on a beach this summer. It struck a man and his daughter, killed the man instantly, and his daughter died a day later. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/us/fl...lands-on-beach/ The pilot made a good emergency landing, and nobody on the plane was injured. If the pilot had another option, he wouldn't have had to attempt a landing where there may be people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
I've never heard of these before. Is it possible to slow the propeller enough to allow the parachute and prop to be used simultaneously? This would presumably allow pilots some control over landing sites and prevent them from landing on people. If that's possible, then I'd be all for it due to the public safety benefits. If not, then it seems like a bit of a wash to me. It gives pilots an option to prevent violent crashes, but at the cost of increasing the overall number of crashes. Though on second thought, a slowly descending aircraft is easier to see and react to ...
Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
There doesn't seem to be any real argument except for general anti-safety arguments. "I've worked this business for 30 years and have never fallen off a roof and died, so why should I need to wear a harness just because of some idiots who don't know how to look where they're going?," etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:There doesn't seem to be any real argument except for general anti-safety arguments. I think it's about finding the acceptable level of risk. I don't wear a Kevlar vest every day despite the fact that people get shot more frequently than planes crash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Juche Box Hero posted:I think it's about finding the acceptable level of risk. I don't wear a Kevlar vest every day despite the fact that people get shot more frequently than planes crash. Planes are typically taken to a higher degree of safety than an average citizen though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Juche Box Hero posted:I think it's about finding the acceptable level of risk. I don't wear a Kevlar vest every day despite the fact that people get shot more frequently than planes crash. I can certainly get on board with that. Airplane-related accidents are quite rare, it's true. What is the system impact of the parachute? How heavy is it and how much does it cost? I mean your carburetor pull-knob example is, to me, a clear example of an obsolete system that hasn't been replaced because that's the way it is. There's nothing involved there that couldn't be automated with a 6 oz microprocessor that would probably be lighter and cheaper than the knob assembly. But a parachute is something else entirely. Dr. Stab posted:There doesn't seem to be any real argument except for general anti-safety arguments. This is partially true, but I think that there's some merit in saying, "Look if you can't handle this equipment without training wheels then you shouldn't be operating it alone in the first place." For example: I'm a recreational scuba diver, and while it would certainly be possible to rig the Buoyancy Control Device to automatically slowly inflate and bring you to the surface when the air tank gets low - or conversely to have a maximum depth/inflation ratio in order to avoid accidental bends/uncontrolled descents - it would never be a good idea. Because frankly if you can't manage basic BCD control then you shouldn't be outside of a pool. A better example might be with mountaineers and emergency GPS transmitters: It's great for saving lives, but it's also attracting a lot of casual hikers who shouldn't be soloing mountains in the first place - and they end up getting themselves into trouble, or popping their transmitters for minor reasons and getting a helicopter because they were thirsty. On the flip side there certainly have been new diving and hiking safety equipment that is now widely used simply because it is better. Maybe this parachute system is the equivalent of the modern single-hose regulator, or the auto-igniting high-pressure white fuel stove - gear that is simply safer than the old dual-hose regs or Coleman stoves. I don't know. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I can certainly get on board with that. Airplane-related accidents are quite rare, it's true. What is the system impact of the parachute? How heavy is it and how much does it cost? I mean your carburetor pull-knob example is, to me, a clear example of an obsolete system that hasn't been replaced because that's the way it is. There's nothing involved there that couldn't be automated with a 6 oz microprocessor that would probably be lighter and cheaper than the knob assembly. But a parachute is something else entirely. A cursory search yields that one AP system (BRS) weighs at least 85 lbs. Edit: and costs upwards of $4k, depending on the model. Carb heat was mechanically automated in carbureted cars, but it is generally left to the pilot in aircraft because it degrades engine performance. It's up to the pilot to balance the power to the prop with protection from engine ice. Also, pulling heat at the wrong time can send already-formed ice deeper into the engine. I guess that why pilots like having direct control over that knob.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I've never heard of these before. Is it possible to slow the propeller enough to allow the parachute and prop to be used simultaneously? This would presumably allow pilots some control over landing sites and prevent them from landing on people. If that's possible, then I'd be all for it due to the public safety benefits. If not, then it seems like a bit of a wash to me. It gives pilots an option to prevent violent crashes, but at the cost of increasing the overall number of crashes. Though on second thought, a slowly descending aircraft is easier to see and react to ... The deployment procedures involve stopping the engine(s). Without the chute you'd be able to control your direction in a glide, though it would obviously be a faster descent and gliding may not work out if it's your controls or surfaces that are busted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I am a licensed commercial pilot, and I am also involved in flight safety for a couple of flying organisations. Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS; the correct term for such systems), serve far more purposes than giving the pilot a last-ditch "way out". In the Cirrus SR20 and SR22, the types that pioneered the use of BRS, the system was installed because the aircraft was not able to meet the FAA's spin recovery requirements; this was intentional on the part of Cirrus, as it allowed them to make the aircraft more efficient aerodynamically. However, they still needed to comply with the rule in some way, so they did so by using the parachute, thereby providing an "equivalent level of safety". Coincidentally, when the SR20/22 was certified in Europe, EASA was unwilling to grant them the ELOS waiver and demanded the aircraft pass the spin recovery, which in fact it did without issue. Of course the added benefit to the BRS is that it can be used in far more than just spin recovery; any situation where a forced landing would be needed (such as an engine failure) or in any situation where the pilot is in over his/her head (such as inadvertent flight into instrument or icing conditions), they can pop the parachute and (potentially) survive the situation. Reality, however, played out somewhat different. Initially, the Cirruses suffered from an appalling accident rate; far higher than any equivalent aircraft in the general aviation fleet, and critically, pilots were losing aircraft in situations where the parachute would otherwise save them. A number of factors were determined to be the cause; first, the Cirrus is a pretty high-performamce aircraft (for a piston-powered single) that appealed to a lot of relatively inexperienced pilots as a good first aircraft. This performance, combined with their inexperience and the confidence (or overconfidence) in their aircraft led to the poor accident rate. Added to that, it was found there was a general reluctance to deploy the parachute in the first place; using the BRS in the Cirrus results in a survivable landing but at the expense of writing the aircraft off. The BRS has its own limitations as well; it is ineffective below 500-600 feet above ground and at speeds above 135 knots, which limits its usefulness in certain extreme loss of control events. Training was also an issue as well - nobody really trained for BRS deployment and there was littleto no discussion in type training as to when and how to deploy the system. In the last ten years or so, Cirrus and the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have devised specialized training to address this issue, and as a result the accident rate has fallen in line with other general aviation types. Beyond that, there is an issue much larger at play in aviation, which is when to declare an emergency and how far to take your actions. Deploying the BRS, as I mentioned, is a big deal - it ends your flight, it removes all but one option and it destroys the aircraft. Admittedly, this is a big decision, and human nature often quite foolishly prioritizes property over life, or tries to minimize inconvenience to others - a good example of this is the accident just yesterday involving that unresponsive TBM-900. If the pilot was more forceful, or declared an emergency, it is possible they might have survived the ordeal. Instead he did not disclose the full magnitude of his emergency to air traffic control, and as a result was not given a lower, safer altitude. While it is easy to armchair speculate and I acknowledge the insidious nature of hypoxia, if it were me, I would have declared a mayday and initiated a full emergency descent at the first sign of trouble, overriding ATC with as many "negatives" and "unables" as necessary to get me where I need to go. Back on subject, the BRS can be an effective tool to improve safety, but only if pilots are trained on the physical and human factors limitations of the device, and are trained in the appropriate use of the system. At the same time, it is no substitute for quality training, good airmanship and sound, clear-headed decision making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
I'm a light sport pilot that has flown on a couple planes with these installed. They can be a nice comfort in the back of your head while flying over heavily populated areas, mountains, and near flight schools that are taught by dumbfucks that think it's cute to perform touch-and-goes the opposite direction of traffic on an uncontrolled field. My only complaint is the extra weight cuts into the very narrow window of usable load on these type of aircraft. The 100lbs of weight they add to the plane cuts into the 1320lb max gross or 400-600lb useable load, dependent on the make/model. That useful load also includes fuel, oil, luggage, pilot/passenger weight, fancy/old avionics and manufacturer fixes to the airframe. Re Carb heat. Some newly designed engine layouts put the carb behind the engine. The layout doesn't even need carb heat installed. You never have to even think about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Juche Box Hero posted:Additionally, and this is admittedly something of a slippery-slope argument, regulators or insurance companies could, partly because of AP availability and/or lobbying, begin to require pilots to ditch their planes for minor emergencies. Given that deploying the parachute destroys the plane, which kind of insurance company are you thinking of? Life insurance? Can you come up with a similar scenario that has actually played out like that? Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:Given that deploying the parachute destroys the plane, which kind of insurance company are you thinking of? Life insurance? Can you come up with a similar scenario that has actually played out like that? How exactly does deploying the parachute destroy the plane? I mean. . .We deploy parachutes while skydiving and it doesn't destroy the pack its in, nor the person using it. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
So this isn't an idea that anyone is thinking of putting on major airliners, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is partially true, but I think that there's some merit in saying, "Look if you can't handle this equipment without training wheels then you shouldn't be operating it alone in the first place." You could take that argument and apply it to anything. Same with the insurance policy bit. "If you can't handle owning this gun without a gunsafe, trigger lock, and safety mechanism, you shouldn't be operating it in the first place."  "How far will insurance companies go, telling me they will or won't cover me if I own a gun in my house?" Its a slippery slope fallacy at its purist, and the type of logic we see from people whom constantly scream 'Are 2nd armendment rights!' Still don't see how it destroys the plane, but assuming it does, the insurance argument is stupid because if that was the case then anyone with insurance on their speedboats would already be forced to go only x amount of speed and absolutely no jet skiing or anything because INSURANCE POLICY! We'd be literally unable to do anything one might consider dangerous because logically it would mean higher chances for an insurance claim and the insurance companies just can't have that, so they'd drop you like a bad habit.And golly gee, if someone somewhere were to make a mistake, and not be able to handle 'the equipment' without a safety feature due to reasons beyond their control, whats their options without it? Just die and get out of the way of the people who won't make mistakes, ever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:How exactly does deploying the parachute destroy the plane? Aircraft are flimsy and rigid, usually made with aluminium and weigh several tons. Even a controlled descent would destroy the landing gear and probably the entire bottom portion of the plane as it crumpled in on itself to absorb the force, like a car in a crash. Humans on the other hand are dense, flexible, bipedal and can heal, so we can cope with a parachute landing safely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:How exactly does deploying the parachute destroy the plane? Are you a metal plane? e: b
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Are you a metal plane? No? but I'm still curious. I mean maybe it warps the frame beyond use. I dunno, I am genuinely asking, not to be a smartass, but because if our soft and fleshy bodies can withstand parachutes, why can't airplanes? Likely due to us being flexible and a plane's frame being rigid. Edit: Missed the explanation. Thanks slipup! E-Tank fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
quote:Simmons gets down to the economics of the issue (where one often arrives at something very closely resembling the truth) when he says that after all these years the industry really has weighed in. Last year Chartis Insurance (formerly AIG) waived the deductible in a chute pull for its insured Cirrus airplanes. A number of other insurers followed suit. It is, after all, a lot cheaper for an insurance company to pay for a new airplane than to settle an accidental death claim, or two, or three, or four. Insurers of course don't always get it right but they've certainly crunched the numbers and probably found the claims it would increase recklessness to be fairly lacking. Where's the evidence to support the claim it would beyond a gut feeling? At least in the article it doesn't seem to mention any circumstances where that was the case nor did a quick google really find any evidence towards that claim. Kaal posted:
In the SCUBA example not paying attention to your tank is entirely the divers fault and hiking is a low barrier to entry sport that can't be easily regulated. Airplane pilots have several fairly large barriers to entry, must be adequately trained, and the need for the chute can happen to the most experienced and careful pilot due to factors completely beyond their control. Not disagreeing with your overall point, it just doesn't seem as relevant w.r.t AP systems. Juche Box Hero posted:I think it's about finding the acceptable level of risk. I don't wear a Kevlar vest every day despite the fact that people get shot more frequently than planes crash. I wouldn't worry about lightning strikes in general, but I would certainly worry about them if it was storming while I was golfing. Likewise, some places in the world are certainly dangerous enough (a warzone) to justify wearing a vest even if the chance is still rare- after all car crashes are very rare but seatbelts are still an excellent idea to use. You need a basis for comparison, plane crashes vs. gunshot wounds simple is as apples and oranges as you can get. Accidents in planes are of course going to be much rarer because flying non-commercial is a rare thing in general. Anyway to try and put it in perspective small planes that would use such systems are about 45x more likely to be subject to an accident than commercial and about 5x more likely than chartered jets. It does seem like there are arguments to be made about its cost and weight vs. other systems that could save more lives, for example maybe a system that stops people from flying planes into the ground may be more cost and weight effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
A human has a bit of control over the parachute, lands feet first and can dynamically react to obstacles, steep ground etc. While a several meters long airplane essentially hits a random bit of ground, obstacles be damned. I can see how it can be annoying to have a parachute on a plane because of the additional weight, costs and even psychological pressure in an accident, but really - refusing them is the same as refusing safety helmets. Sure, you won't need them most of the time, they might breed a false sense of security and prompt lawmakers and insurances to make them esentially mandatory. But in some freak situations they mean the difference between life and death. How much worth do you put on your own life?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:No? but I'm still curious. I mean maybe it warps the frame beyond use. I dunno, I am genuinely asking, not to be a smartass, but because if our soft and fleshy bodies can withstand parachutes, why can't airplanes? Parachutes slow the descent compared to say terminal velocity but usually parachute landings of equipment are still at a high speed. From Wikipedia regarding the Cirrus: quote:Since the landing gear and firewall are part of the structure designed to be crushed for energy absorption during impact after parachute deploy, Cirrus originally thought that the airframe would be damaged beyond repair on impact. There is some vertical speed that would be required to land safely without damage to the airframe. There is another higher speed that will leave the airframe damaged but people unhurt. The second speed lets you use a much smaller parachute than the first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Default Settings posted:Sure, you won't need them most of the time, they might breed a false sense of security and prompt lawmakers and insurances to make them esentially mandatory. I'll point out that the OP's "slippery slope" theory wasn't that insurance companies would mandate their presence, but that insurance companies would dictate when they must be deployed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Aircraft are flimsy and rigid, usually made with aluminium and weigh several tons. Even a controlled descent would destroy the landing gear and probably the entire bottom portion of the plane as it crumpled in on itself to absorb the force, like a car in a crash. To be more specific, the BRS in the Cirrus causes damage both on deployment (a rocket motor literally shoots the parachute thorough the fuselage skin, and the lines tear out from underneath the skin as well) and on landing, where the aircraft will sustain an impact of roughly 7-9 g. The aircraft is not stressed to survive the impact in a usable manner, but it will make the impact survivable for the occupants. MrChips fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Back on subject, the BRS can be an effective tool to improve safety, but only if pilots are trained on the physical and human factors limitations of the device, and are trained in the appropriate use of the system. At the same time, it is no substitute for quality training, good airmanship and sound, clear-headed decision making. Yea maybe we should just have both of those things on a plane how about? When the alternative possibilities include crashing into the ground and fuckin exploding what kind of a dickhead would seriously be against planes having parachutes in them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Juche Box Hero posted:One last thing. There's a pull-knob in the cockpit of almost every piston-driven aircraft. It's for carburetor heat. You're supposed to use it on descent, to keep your carburetor from icing up and your engine from quitting. If you don't pull the knob, there is a significantly increased probability your engine will stop and you'll crash into an orphanage. Automating this knob-pull would be pretty easy. An automatic carb-heat-on-descent system would probably save lives. The reason systems like this don't exist, or at least aren't prevalent, is that they would increase operating/maintenance expenses, increase weight, and disconnect the pilot from needing to know how his plane works. Just like an AP Actually it's more that you don't want to run into the edge-cases where the carb heat could accidentally turn off. One guy around here planted a Cessna into a field doing that. On the old Continential engines, the air intake is notoriously prone to ice buildup, and the guy had some ice start building up. The descent checklist has you turn on the carb heat, and the engine started running rough (because the carb heat was melting the ice and getting water in the fuel mix). He made the mistake of thinking that running rough meant he should turn the heat back off and bam - the water froze right back up inside the carb. So you don't want to have a situation where potentially the carb heat turns on and back off again. You can spend forever working out a system that handles all the edge-cases where that might happen, or you can just have a knob in the cockpit that the pilot pulls when he wants to turn it on or off. Don't overengineer problems like this, it's way easier/safer to just have an item in your checklist saying "turn carb heat on" than to design a system that tries to read the pilot's mind. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Actually it's more that you don't want to run into the edge-cases where the carb heat could accidentally turn off. Not to mention that any computerized system would likely require a manual backup and instruction on how to use it in the event of a system failure anyway. Also, in certain situations with certain engine designs, carb heat must be turned off prior to landing on an unprepared field, so you'd have to have the ability to turn the carb heat off manually anyway (which could theoretically result in in being left off by accident, resulting in carb icing). Turning carb heat on or off, or adjusting the mixture, are both so trivial that, while I suppose it would be possible to automate them, it makes very little sense. Look, too, at the recent Asiana crash -- a major contributing factor was a lack of understanding of how automated systems would function in certain edge cases. These sorts of problems would almost certainly be exacerbated on light aircraft flown by pilots with less experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:Given that deploying the parachute destroys the plane, which kind of insurance company are you thinking of? Life insurance? Can you come up with a similar scenario that has actually played out like that? I'm thinking maybe that guy with the busted aileron hinge in the article didn't do a preflight or some other due diligence and was afraid that would be discovered if he hosed up his landing less-than-catastrophically. Say he got back to ground safely without the BRS. Good for him, it all worked out (like it probably would have if he'd tried). But maybe instead he gets back to ground and whacks his wing on the runway a little bit. Now the insurance company wants to know what happened before they'll pay for repairs, and he knows he didnt walk around his plane before he took off. So he's hosed, and has to pay for repairs out of pocket. He thinks about the latter situation while he's in the air, looking at his wobbly control surface and thinks, gently caress it, I'll just pull my chute. Now everybody's premiums go up to pay for his entire plane, and the insurance company loves him for doing the "safe" thing, and the parachute crowd claims another success. I'm sure there are holes in my idea. I'm not an expert at insurance or flying but that is the sort of situation I was imagining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
From what I can see, BRS didn't make for a statistically safer aircraft so... how can one argue for mandating their use? Basing the argument on anecdotes of wings falling off mid-flight doesn't really do it for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
I distinctly recall an incident in Boulder, Colorado where a Cirrus struck a cable between a glider and its tow when coming in for a landing. The chute deployed, but it was little use when the plane was burning. The problem in general is that parachutes encourage bad habits and bad pilots in general aviation, which is already deceptively dangerous. Some pilots might feel safer getting into a plane with a parachute, In all honestly? You're always one bad decision away from death as a private pilot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Default Settings posted:I can see how it can be annoying to have a parachute on a plane because of the additional weight, costs and even psychological pressure in an accident, but really - refusing them is the same as refusing safety helmets. Comparing a crash helmet to a BRS is apples and oranges frankly. A crash helmet is, depending on the application, the ONLY level of passive safety you have (such as on a bicycle or a motorbike), and there is such a huge body of evidence in favour of their use that it is foolish not to use them. The BRS on the other hand, does not enjoy that luxury as yet, and in the absence of proper training might actually have a negative effect on safety, as the decision to use the system is not as straightforawrd as we might imagine it to be. Additionally, there are far cheaper and easier ways to "create" safety in aviation. As some of you have mentioned, the barriers to entry are very high; they are intentionally set that high for that very reason. In nearly all cases, those barriers are made even higher when it is time to purchase an aircraft. The regulator (the FAA or any of the national aerospace authorities) typically state that the pilot of an aircraft must demonstrate competency in a particular aircraft before they are allowed to fly it, but more often than not the insurance companies spell out exactly what level of competency you need to demonstrate before they will insure you in said aircraft. In addition to the regulator's requirement, which varies from aircraft to aircraft, the insurance company will.often stipulate that a pilot must have X number of flying hours in an aircraft under tbe supervision of a qualified pilot before their policy comes into effect. While you could fly without insurance (just the same as you can drive your car without insurance), the penalty for doing so is so severe (long jail time, permanent revocation of your pilot license and huge fines are but some of the penalties) that is is almost unheard of. To give you an example of just how effective this regulation can be, I will give you an example that I have firsthand experince with; the Mitsubishi MU-2. The MU-2 is a twin-turboprop, light executive aircraft that affords incredible performance at a very reasonable purchase and operating cost. However, many of the features that gave the MU-2 its stellar performamce made it tricky to fly under certain circumstances, and following conventional wisdom in many scenarios, such as engine failure, is extremely hazardous in the MU-2. As a result, the MU-2 suffered an appalling accident record for most of its life; of the 700-odd MU-2s built, roughly 200 of them have crashed in the 50 years of its existence. The accident rate was so bad that the FAA took the unprecedented step many years ago of re-evaluating the MU-2's airworthiness certificate. A long investigation ensued and the results were surprising; there was no serious fault with the aircraft, rather, it was found that aircrews were not adequately trained to fly the aircraft safely. Working with industry and the manufacturer, a special training program, far more demanding and above anything that pilots of any other aircraft type ever had to comply with, was created and implemented in 2008. Since then, the MU-2's accident rate has gone from the very worst in its class to the very best. MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
It took them 50 years to do that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Default Settings posted:I can see how it can be annoying to have a parachute on a plane because of the additional weight, costs and even psychological pressure in an accident, but really - refusing them is the same as refusing safety helmets. It's not so much how much do you put on your own life as what is an acceptable risk. General aviation has an average of 0.5 fatalities per 100,000 hours of flying. Cars have a rate of .017 per 100,000 hours of driving. Roughly 30x the rate of driving! By becoming a GA pilot you knowingly accept this risk. But wait! What if you have a BRS chute? Doesn't that automatically make everything much safer? Not really. The pilot's decision making and training is attributed to almost 90% of accidents. These include flying into IMC(Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions), not following due diligence and properly calculating fuel, errors landing. There is a space for these parachutes for 2-5% of the fatal accidents. Check this bitchin powerpoint for all the statistics compiled into a somewhat friendly read http://www.ghafi.org/download/GA-Analysis.1.pdf . The stats are based on the 90s but the accident and fatality rate has remained nearly the same. Anything that happens below 500-1000ft does not count as a save for a BRS system. That said, I do like having one around heavily populated areas, mountains, and on aircraft made in the 1940s. In an ideal world where every pilot has unlimited money, yes it would be a safe bet installing these on your plane. But, aviation is expensive and pilots are mostly broke from the hobby. Almost 90% of the people would be better protecting themselves from their cause of death by spending the $4k for equipment and $2-3k for the install(A&P's aren't cheap) on more flight time with an instructor. edit: less friendly read with current statistics. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf Accident rates have slightly gone up, but this could be attributed to pilots flying less due to the recession. See above for more flight time and more training. edit2: grammar!! I'm visiting family and kids are like inducing ADD. Entone fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:I'll point out that the OP's "slippery slope" theory wasn't that insurance companies would mandate their presence, but that insurance companies would dictate when they must be deployed. I could see this being an issue. "Well, it's great that when your engine went out you were able to glide the plane to a landing with only moderate damage to the aircraft, but your policy requires you deploy the BRS in those circumstances so we won't be covering you."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Default Settings posted:I can see how it can be annoying to have a parachute on a plane because of the additional weight, costs and even psychological pressure in an accident, but really - refusing them is the same as refusing safety helmets. 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. Experts have long argued the best thing to do for general aviation is to say that: 1) It is dangerous. 2) There is a chance you're going to die if you're doing it. 3) 1 and 2 are a given if you do something dumb, which makes up > 85% of general aviation accidents. The main problem with this argument is that this entirely removes commercial aviation from the picture, which is by far safer than anything private aviation has to offer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Entone posted:In an ideal world were every pilot has unlimited money, yes it would be a safe bet installing these on your plane. But, aviation is expensive and pilots are mostly broke from the hobby. Almost 90% of the people would be better protecting themselves from their cause of death by spending the $4k for equipment and $2-3k for the install(A&P's aren't cheap) on more flight time with an instructor. Pretty much this. I'd also like to disagree with the person who said you're always one mistake away from death as a private pilot. My instructors impressed upon us that almost every incident or accident has a causal chain. Yes, at the end, there's the final decision that results in a crash and might kill you, but you usually reach that point by making a few less-severe bad decisions along the way. Flying into IMC without training might be the immediate cause of your accident, for example, but it's pretty likely that, at some point in this example, you looked at the marginal VFR conditions and said, "ah, gently caress it, the weather should hold and I want to make it home tonight," and there very well might have been a point where you could've chosen to turn around but didn't. My instructor used the example of, "it's December 24th, and you're stuck in Cut Bank, and you really want to make it home for Christmas, but there's bad weather between you Calgary. As a pilot, you have to be able to look at the weather objectively, and decide that the proper course of action is to stay on the ground, or you will eventually kill yourself." EDIT: And, yes, it really loving sucks when you've just finished your run-up, and your takeoff clearance announces that the winds are now above your maximums, and you have to taxi back to the hangar with your tail between your legs. That one I had to do personally, but it's just not worth taking the chance. PT6A fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I could see this being an issue. "Well, it's great that when your engine went out you were able to glide the plane to a landing with only moderate damage to the aircraft, but your policy requires you deploy the BRS in those circumstances so we won't be covering you." The pilot will be expected to do what the FAA approved engine out procedure for the aircraft is. Also, think about an auto insurance collision coverage if a tire blew out and you crashed into a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything? In diving it has. Some dive masters in Mexico, especially if they know they're going near caves, confiscate flashlights before plunging.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything? Given that the most dangerous thing in aviation is putting yourself in a bad situation through poo poo judgement, anything which might make you more likely to put yourself in a bad situation must be viewed as suspect. When I was in training, all but one or two of our aircraft had small GPSs. We were trained in how to use the basic functionality, but we never really got to use it -- it was only a last-ditch "holy gently caress where am I?" sort of thing, because over-reliance on technology can lead to the neglect of good airmanship. If everyone approached the AFP in the same way, I doubt there'd be an issue, but the statistics would seem to bear out that a lot of these people are putting themselves in more dangerous situations where the AFP is triggered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:35
|
|