|
My Lil Parachute posted:Because it's impossible to save up 60 grand or so for an aircraft (that you can later resell) unless you are rich, right? No way could you buy a shitter house & save (possibly pooling your cash with a few friends) for something that you're passionate about. I'm not sure why everyone is upset about this Micheal Brown shooting. If the residents dislike the way the police behave they should just get in their airplanes and fly out of Ferguson.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
This discussion was pretty stupid the first time around, but it's really, really goddamn stupid the second time around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yeah, I mean, why would anybody who owns their own aircraft be rich? It doesn't add up. I was saying it would be crazy expensive to pull the chute over what seemed to be not really a major problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Making them mandatory in new aircraft will not save that many lives, given the existing fleet would be grandfathered in. Instead of hiding behind BS laws introduced for our own safety, I wish the wowsers would just come out and say they hate all fun (planes, jet skis, muscle cars etc) that doesn't involve hugging trees or other pissant activities. I'm really glad I didn't have that attitude when I went down on my motorcycle, helmet on, or else I'd likely have been brain dead. You keep thinking that making activities safer is a bad thing, though. It's amazing the parallels this has to motorcycle riding. The only riders who have the "gently caress those pissant liberals and their safety" poo poo are people who trailer their bikes to Sturgis and ride slow as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm really glad I didn't have that attitude when I went down on my motorcycle, helmet on, or else I'd likely have been brain dead. You keep thinking that making activities safer is a bad thing, though. You don't seem to get this, though: there's not a significant body of evidence that shows airframe parachutes are a) making flight significantly safer or b) are a cost-effective means of doing so. The research is in on helmets and seatbelts: they're good, they work and they aren't very expensive. BRSs are only able to be attached to a small number of planes relative to the entire GA fleet and only provide protection in certain situations. You also don't seem to understand the difference between an active safety system and a passive safety system, and you're overlooking the dangers that exist after the BRS has been deployed (a completely uncontrollable aircraft). I have no problem with a pilot who makes the informed choice to buy a BRS, and I would likely install one on any single-engine plane I bought that could be fitted with one. That doesn't mean they don't have disadvantages, or that they should be mandated. EDIT: You see parallels to motorcycle riding because you're ignorant about general aviation, and you are basically making things up to support your argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm really glad I didn't have that attitude when I went down on my motorcycle, helmet on, or else I'd likely have been brain dead. You keep thinking that making activities safer is a bad thing, though. Would you attach a parachute to your bike so you can slow down in case your brakes fail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Would you attach a parachute to your bike so you can slow down in case your brakes fail? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:If my bike travelled 210 miles an hour at 3000 feet altitude, I might consider it How modern are your brakes in the bike? Do you have the best bicycle brakes money can buy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
The point isn't to have the best possible equipment to avoid any accident. The point is to have the equipment to avoid unreasonable risks to passengers and bystanders. We mandate fairly high security measures in cars because accidents often kill random people. We don't mandate much safety for bikes because cyclists mostly only kill themselves. Now private pilots do seem to kill themselves with some regularity but they rarely kill little old ladies on the ground. The passengers are there on their free will given that it's a recreational activity so we also needn't be concerned with them. The exception is child passengers. Maybe higher safety standards would be a good thing if you want to bus around children but again it's not a very frequent problem as opposed to children in cars. The question isn't if something is safer - the question is who it's safer for and to what degree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:If my bike travelled 210 miles an hour at 3000 feet altitude, I might consider it The aircraft we're talking about can't do 210 mph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Not to mention, height is safety - it gives you more time to think and more places to land. Compared to a motorbike there are less things to hit in the air. e: do we have anyone with actual PIC time who is for compulsory chutes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:e: do we have anyone with actual PIC time who is for compulsory chutes? Are you suggesting that riding a motorcycle doesn't give you the breadth of experience necessary to make the right choice about any facet of transportation safety? Poppycock, I say!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Keep circle-jerking with your giant plane boners. It definitely bolsters your argument. In terms of real content, you guys have still not managed to demonstrate your claims: 1) That it's cost prohibitive in comparison to the other costs associated with planes. 2) That it increases the weight of the plane beyond what is reasonable. 3) That it makes pilots worse through some, as yet unexplained, mechanism. I'm also not sure I'm actually for making chutes mandatory. So far you guys have just done a terrible job of backing anything up. Whenever you're asked to back up your claims you just retreat back to ad homs and arguments from authority. I also don't think anyone has really championed or fought for any kind of sweeping regulation changes to make them mandatory. The chutes seem like a real good idea, and so people wanted to hear why they might not be a good idea. That was met with some really bad arguments backed up with unsupported claims, and when people rightfully said, "wait a second, none of these arguments make logical sense" it was met with "Are you a pilot? Just trust me! I'm a pilot!" So I'm probably gonna wait to continue this discussion until you bother to back up your claims since it's pretty clear you're not really arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
you should probably start posting from your parachute account!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Keep circle-jerking with your giant plane boners. It definitely bolsters your argument. 1) It's cost-prohibitive because it costs money, and it hasn't been demonstrated to increase safety. Some planes equipped with BRSs have shown increased accident rates, although I would obviously not claim that the BRSs are causing these accidents. 2) I don't really care about that argument, you could make the same argument for any piece of equipment on a plane. It's always going to be a cost-benefit analysis, and in some cases it will prove to favour the BRS, in others it won't. It depends on the use the plane is being put to. 3) As long as there's mandatory training involved before you can fly a plane with a BRS, including its effects on PDM, the risks it carries, and the circumstances in which it may be properly deployed, I don't think it will make pilots worse. If this is not put into place, I do believe it's a safety issue (as with any piece of equipment on an aircraft for which a pilot has not been suitably trained). I would also like to bring up a few other arguments, which you haven't mentioned here and I don't think the pro-BRS side has really addressed sufficiently: 1) The installation and training associated with a BRS system takes money from the pilot that they could be spending on additional training, which is a thing that is proven to actually lower accident rates and fatalities. 2) Not all planes can be equipped with a BRS anyway, so devoting money to it instead of additional training would be bad for a pilot who plans to fly a non-equipped plane. 3) Additional training is more cost-effective in many cases than a BRS, because better airmanship can help prevent accidents, such as CFIT, that would not be "fixable" with a BRS. 4) The risk to the people on the ground is still significant in most cases, because the plane is completely uncontrollable and will still likely kill you if it falls on top of you. 5) No one's really provided a clear guideline for the class of aircraft for which a BRS would be made mandatory. Would it apply equally to light aircraft flown in commercial situations? Would it apply to twins (there's less chance of two engines failing, but that's hardly the only circumstance that could result in a BRS deployment)? What about ultra-lights and kit-planes (both of which are way, way more likely to be involved in an accident than the average Cessna)? Finally, given the extremely low amount of "mandatory" equipment on any aircraft, I think the case really needs to be made by those in favour of BRS systems being mandatory to explain why it ought to be mandatory, rather that those of us who disagree to argue why it should not be mandatory. I'm not saying they should be banned, just that it should be the plane owner's option. Christ, you don't even need a radio if you're operating outside controlled airspace. We train pilots rigorously; they have the information needed to decide whether their plane should be equipped with a BRS or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
ErIog posted:In terms of real content, you guys have still not managed to demonstrate your claims: 1) In Australia, the average age of the single piston-engine fleet is 30+ years. To fit a $50 camera to a wing (maybe 15 minutes work) requires engineering orders costing thousands. How, pray tell, do you think it would be affordable to retrofit hundreds of different aircraft types, many which are no longer supported by their manufacturers, with a ballistic chute which the airframe was never designed for? 2) Diamond Aircraft click have a bit of a blurb about chuts quote:some customers like the idea of having that “lifeline” whereas others would rather have the extra 130 lbs of fuel that the BRS is expected to weigh. Depending on the engine, that can work out to several hours of fuel - useful in case of a long diversion due to weather - or room to carry a life raft if traveling over-water. It could also carry survival supplies if flying in a remote area. You are the one, seemingly with no loving idea about aviation, who is nevertheless insisting on a complicated modification, economics, physics and seemingly reality be damned. You justify how the benefits outweigh the expense..
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Keep circle-jerking with your giant plane boners. It definitely bolsters your argument. Pointing out logical fallacies in any debate is incredibly gauche, and serves no real purpose other than to stroke your own ego. Anyone with any real debating skills will acknowledge a logical fallacy by striking it down with their own argument/rebuttal, rather than by merely jumping up and down and shouting about it. First of all, I would like to say that the link provided by My Lil Parachute, from Diamond Aircraft, is a very good explanation as to why a BRS is not necessarily a good solution. Also note that Diamond has made the BRS optional in their D-Jet light jet single (if it ever reaches production, that is). For an aircraft operating in the environment that the D-Jet is designed for, at far higher speeds and altitudes than most general aviation aircraft are capable of reaching, I would say it makes a lot more sense than in that aircraft than most other general aviation aircraft. High altitude (>25,000 feet for argument's sake) loss-of-control events are not to be trifled with, no matter what aircraft you're flying. Additionally, high altitudes introduce the potential for very severe hypoxia events, where the parachute might give a stricken pilot the chance of surviving the incident. I say might, because hypoxia is insidious in its onset and can easily go unnoticed until it is too late to do anything about it. Additionally, the parachute might not be certified to withstand a deployment at a typical cruising speed; since there is basically no information regarding the limitations of the BRS intended for the D-Jet, you cannot argue for or against that point. All of this is, however, tangential to the main argument. With regard to the weight consideration, let's look at the example of an aircraft typically used in flight training; the Cessna 152. The typical empty weight of a 152 is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1080-1120 pounds, depending on what options it has and how many times it's been painted over its life - call it 1100 even for the sake of argument. Maximum takeoff weight is 1675 pounds, which gives a maximum payload of 575 pounds for our example aircraft. With the standard-size, 24 US gallon fuel tanks filled to the brim, that takes 144 pounds of payload, which then leaves 431 pounds for passengers and baggage. My weight, including everything I take with me flying, is 220 pounds in the summer, which leaves 211 pounds for the other passenger - unless I'm flying with football player, chances are good we can fit without exceeding maximum takeoff weight. Now, let's fit a parachute to our example 152. According to one manufacturer who makes a retrofit BRS for the 152, the total system weight is just under 50 pounds. Since we are legally not allowed to increase the takeoff weight of the aircraft, all of this added weight is done so at the expense of payload. In this new example, unless you and your flight bag weight less than 160 pounds, we are not legal to fly the aircraft without offloading fuel, reducing the already short endurance of the 152 even further. This is an fairly extreme example using a conventionally-certified aircraft; most others have much more payload available. On the other hand, Light Sport Aircraft (LSAs) make up the overwhelming majority of new-build aircraft, and if anything those are even more payload/weight restricted than even our Cessna 152 example. Now, let's talk about cost. Put bluntly, it is the single biggest reason why nearly all general aviation pilots are flying less. Since 2003, the NTSB and AOPA both estimate that fleet-wide personal flying hours have dropped by over 40 percent. Additionally, the number of aircraft and pilots have not dropped commensurate with the drop in total flying hours, meaning pilots as a whole are flying less on average. This is reflected in the per-flying hour accident rate; since 2003, that rate has increased by almost 30% (mercifully, the rate of fatal accidents has remained constant). Since it is well-acknowledged in the industry that accident rates drop dramatically based on the total flying a pilot has amassed recently (especially when we are discussing pilots who fly less than 100 hours per year), any further reduction of flying will very likely serve to increase the accident rate. Since basically every aircraft owner, from grandpa who owns a Piper Cub to the entire airline industry, flies within the constraints of a budget, any money they spend making an aircraft comply with regulation is money they aren't spending on actually flying the aircraft. Let's use that Cessna 152 from our weight example once again. The initial cost of installing the BRS in that aircraft is approximately $6000 (which, in case you're wondering, is probably 20-25% of the total value of the aircraft), plus another $1000-1500 every six years to remove the parachute canister, send it back to the manufacturer for repacking and then reinstall it in the aircraft. Over the first parachute cycle, that takes $7000 out of the pilot's pocket that might otherwise have been spent flying the aircraft - that works out to 100 hours of flying lost over that six-year period, or 17 hours per year. Since the average aircraft owner in the United States flies less than 35 hours per year (according to AOPA), that is a HUGE hit in terms of experience and proficiency. Even if the pilot amortised the cost through five parachute repacking cycles - 30 years - they would still lose six hours of flying per year; sixteen percent of what they likely would have flown otherwise. Your third argument, that of the behaviour of pilots flying aircraft with BRS installed, is likely as much a fault of the BRS as it is of the aircraft that champions the system - the Cirrus SR20/22. As I discussed in one of my earliest posts, the problem with the Cirrus was, and to an extent still is, that it naturally attracts first-time owners; the type of pilot who doesn't usually have a lot of experience under their belt, and has experience almost exclusively in forgiving, trainer aircraft like Cessna 152/172s, Piper Warriors and the like. Jumping from one of those and into a Cirrus, even after the insurance-mandated supervisory period is over, is a big jump indeed; the Cirrus flies much faster and higher than any trainer could ever hope to do, its takeoff and landing speeds are much higher (which makes accidents much more likely in those phases of flight), and the aircraft has a couple really nasty corners in its flight envelope. Added to that, the Cirrus family of aircraft often comes outfitted with an avionics suite (the electronics and radios in the aircraft) that frankly puts just about every airliner ever built to shame, meaning the aircraft has incredible capability in the right hands. In the hands of someone inexperienced (and overconfident in their own abilities and that of their aircraft), it is a recipe for an accident. Think of it this way; if you've just got your driver's license, do you think you would perform well if Red Bull called you up to go drive their Formula 1 car? No, it would probably end with the car buried in a tire wall after a couple corners. Having said that, the main competitors to the Cirrus SR20/22, the Beechcraft Bonanza the Cessna Corvalis/TTx, both enjoy much lower accident rates, in spite of having roughly the same performance and avionics of the Cirrus (and in the case of the Bonanza, retractable landing gear; an accident-prone piece of equipment if there ever was one). Neither of these aircraft have a BRS option either, I might add. Back to the Cirrus, my point is that it's poor safety record is a result of the inexperienced flying the aircraft into situations they should not be in; however, as one of the defining features of that aircraft, the role of the parachute cannot be entirely discounted. MrChips fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Pointing out logical fallacies in any debate is incredibly gauche, and serves no real purpose other than to stroke your own ego. Anyone with any real debating skills will acknowledge a logical fallacy by striking it down with their own argument/rebuttal, rather than by merely jumping up and down and shouting about it. This isn't a live presidential debate. Pointing out fallacies serves several purposes. For one, not everyone on the forums is a master debater like you apparently are, and they should learn these things so they can avoid using them or spot them when others do. Knowing and understanding the terminology will make you a better debater, regardless of whether your goal is truth or victory. PT6A posted:Some planes equipped with BRSs have shown increased accident rates, although I would obviously not claim that the BRSs are causing these accidents. Here's a fact that appears to support my claim, but I'm obviously not mentioning it for that reason. I generally agree with your larger points, although I think you're mostly arguing past the other side. A: If these things save innocent lives and do not significantly impair the operation of the plane, they should be included on new models. B: There's no proof they'd be a net benefit also I am a pilot/ flight attendant/ airplane A only seems to be making conditional statements and B seems to be attacking the "if" part as unknown/unproven which is the whole reason it's an "if" to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Trent posted:I generally agree with your larger points, although I think you're mostly arguing past the other side. (A) is loving stupid, though. There's any number of technologies or measures that will save a non-zero number of lives, both in aviation and elsewhere, that are not made mandatory due to issues of cost or feasibility. We could, for example, require 250 hours including full instrument certification in order to get a PPL. This would undoubtedly save more lives than BRSs being installed on all aircraft. Sometimes we just need to go with "good enough," and I think making BRSs available but not mandatory is good enough. Do you honestly contend that anything that could be done to save even one life should be made mandatory at any cost, so long as it doesn't "impair operation" of the thing being improved? It seems like that's your argument here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Some planes equipped with BRSs have shown increased accident rates, although I would obviously not claim that the BRSs are causing these accidents. It's entirely possible that they do, because of Beneficial safety decreases quote:Evidence referred to in this article shows that at least some of the time, such intended safety increases are offset by actors willingly and rationally choosing a riskier behaviour. Yet beyond this offsetting effects, it is sometimes observed that safety increases have led to an increase in accident rates. The literature reviewed in Sect. 2 points to such adverse effects from skill and environment improvements. Our model offers an explanation of these observations, by showing how safety increases, when combined with biased risk judgement, can yield a choice with increased risk levels. Safety regulations and equipment designed to reduce risk of death/injury is a nice idea, but it's not as simple as just throwing as much as possible at the problem. I have lots of (worthless) anecdotal evidence of this from sports like DH mountain biking, where pre-runs go smoothly, then people put on the full armour and proceed to gently caress themselves up in a manner their gear could have never, ever prevented. People get giant new SUVs or 4x4s and promptly end up in ditches, or marooned on roads trails they'd previously driven safely in sedans. The process of risk assessment and management is far from a conscious process and often counter-intuitive. It's hilarious to me that the safest transportation would be something that is intrinsically as safe as possible, while making the perceived risk as high as possible. Probably a low performance personal aircraft, lovely looking (yet completely maintained) with small (yet glitteringly sharp!) spikes arranged around the pilot would meet this criteria. The mechanic would tell you just before take off "Gods, it's on it's last legs - hope you don't break up and fall from the sky", despite having just completed maintenance, just to keep you on your toes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
The 4x4 can get you out of a pinch where you would not have ended up in the first place with a FWD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:The 4x4 can get you out of a pinch where you would not have ended up in the first place with a FWD. The 4x4 could get you into a pinch where you would not have ended up in the first place with a FWD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Juice Box Hero posted:The 4x4 could get you into a pinch where you would not have ended up in the first place with a FWD. Even better yet, with the added "risk removal" of the 4x4 it's probably more likely than with the fwd sedan, with the added bonus that to get the sedan unstuck, you probably pushed it out, where to get the 4x4 unstuck, you probably need another 4x4. Of course, with 2 4x4's you can just keep going, until you get them both stuck, which brings me to another worthless anecdote, where exactly this happened, requiring a loving front end loader to get them both out. FWIW, %95 of that trail would have been fine in 2wd, but they 'could' go that extra bit, woo! People are just kind of inherently dumb about perceived risk vs reward, which no amount of rules or gear will ever solve. Blitter fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
It's pretty great watching the same people who think they know everything about everything decide that they are also, naturally, experts in aircraft safety. Peak D&D.
Best Friends fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you honestly contend that anything that could be done to save even one life should be made mandatory at any cost, so long as it doesn't "impair operation" of the thing being improved? It seems like that's your argument here. Nope, that's you still missing the point. Cost effectiveness is part of the ability to operate of an aircraft. More than the mechanical operation needs to be considered, without question. It is obvious the point of triviality that something should not be mandatory because it could potentially save a life because that includes literally anything. Also, if the saving of one life cost $9999999999999999999 dollars it would not be feasible. So again, no. Not any life at any cost. Maybe some innocent lives if the cost is reasonably absorbable. Also, the 'me and fifteen other totally non-rich people saved up for thirty-two years to chip in and have to live together under a bridge to be able to afford this plane, and the added cost of a safety feature would mean we'd have to get sixteen people or wait thirty-three years, so gently caress you' is a terrible, terrible argument. I don't really care if your luxury item is more expensive if it is less dangerous to innocent bystanders. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THIS FEATURE WOULD MAKE IT SO. I DO NOT HAVE THE DATA. BUT IF IT IS SO, THEN YOU CAN PAY AN EXTRA 5%, YES. Also, I keep seeing posts about how planes are all 35 years old and can't be retrofitted. SO WHAT? We don't require old cars to have airbags and ABS installed. They can get 1 mpg or less and it's fine. Really old cars don't even have all the mirrors and break lights required today! They're grandfathered in! In fact, all the scrimping lower-middle-class aviation hobbyists in this thread would get to continue purchasing and flying grandfathered-in planes for the rest of their natural lives. If anything, this is about building in this feature to new planes, where it won't amount to a loss of cargo capacity, it will simply be part of the plane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Trent posted:If anything, this is about building in this feature to new planes, where it won't amount to a loss of cargo capacity, it will simply be part of the plane. Planes don't work like that. If you look at how planes are ordered, even options that add only a few pounds of weight have their installed weight prominently advertised. The weight budget on a small plane is incredibly tight. Even on Cirruses website, they list the weight of computer upgrades that add only 8-12 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Trent posted:I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT THIS FEATURE WOULD MAKE IT SO. I DO NOT HAVE THE DATA. BUT IF IT IS SO, THEN YOU CAN PAY AN EXTRA 5%, YES. Okay, I will agree with you that, if the BRS makes the aircraft significantly less dangerous to innocent bystanders, and is cost-effective compared to other options that would do the same thing and have the same degree of utility (in terms of the safety being transferrable between different aircraft), then it should be mandated. That seems like a no-brainer. The problem is that no one is even near establishing that these conditions hold, so it's really a very useless discussion. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. It's not cost-effective compared to things like additional training, it doesn't make innocent bystanders any safer because it results in a plane that's out of control anyway*, and its application (both in terms of the aircraft that can be equipped with a BRS and the circumstances in which it can be effectively deployed) is limited. We can have a discussion about what the case would be if these things were completely different, but there's absolutely no loving point. Given that the pro-BRS side are looking to make a very significant and expensive change, shouldn't the onus be on you guys to provide evidence that these conditions hold? * I still have no loving clue what is meant by "innocent bystanders" in this case. Are all pilots then "guilty" of something or other?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Okay, I will agree with you that, if the BRS makes the aircraft significantly less dangerous to innocent bystanders, and is cost-effective compared to other options that would do the same thing and have the same degree of utility (in terms of the safety being transferrable between different aircraft), then it should be mandated. That seems like a no-brainer. Even so it's always a weight concern. I mean, would you rather have a parachute or the equivalent weight in fuel? A fuel reserve is a good safety measure too, in a lot of situations. If nothing else, it gives you the ability to chill out for a few minutes so your adrenaline isn't making the decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Even so it's always a weight concern. I mean, would you rather have a parachute or the equivalent weight in fuel? A fuel reserve is a good safety measure too, in a lot of situations. If nothing else, it gives you the ability to chill out for a few minutes so your adrenaline isn't making the decisions. Larger tanks I would put under the heading of "other options." I would agree with the adage that one can only have too much fuel on board if one's plane has caught fire. EDIT: Mind you, it depends on what sort of flights you'll be doing. If you're doing shorter flights over remote terrain that offers limited opportunity to execute a successful forced approach, I would consider a BRS-equipped aircraft before I considered one with long-range tanks. If you're doing long flights over prairies, or significant amount of IFR flight that could require more reserves in order to make it to a suitable alternate, then I'd rather take the long-range tanks. The point is it should be the decision of the aircraft owner and/or pilot in any case. PT6A fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Larger tanks I would put under the heading of "other options." I would agree with the adage that one can only have too much fuel on board if one's plane has caught fire. For sure, but at least in certain lightweight aircraft a parachute adds enough weight you're probably talking about a choice between a full cargo payload and a full fuel payload, even without larger tanks. A Cessna 150 is down to 344 pounds useful payload with full fuel. Larger aircraft with more powerful engines have different safety tradeoffs. And I also agree with your edit. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:For sure, but at least in certain lightweight aircraft a parachute adds enough weight you're probably talking about a choice between a full cargo payload and a full fuel payload, even without larger tanks. Yeah, absolutely. This also applies to most large planes, in fact. As much as it was drilled into our head to always carry more fuel than necessary, we had one C172 with 62-gallon tanks, and no one wanted those fuckers full on a hot day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
This thread has successfully convinced me that seatbelts in cars are a stupid idea because if we didn't have them we'd be better aware of the risk and drive so slowly that harmful accidents would not occur!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:This thread has successfully convinced me that seatbelts in cars are a stupid idea because if we didn't have them we'd be better aware of the risk and drive so slowly that harmful accidents would not occur! If we're going to have a car analogy, it should be off-roading. What equipment should an off-roader have? Probably depends on the location, terrain, traffic, vehicle type, etc, I would imagine. Could you make a universal recommendation? Probably not. Or, comparisons like scuba diving are pretty close too. Open water divers have pretty strict limits compared to the more advanced or technical diving. They also have a lot less capable equipment and training. Can you mandate a "universal safety equipment" set that works for all dives? Probably not. Open water divers work in pairs and can ascend right away, technical divers may work alone, dive in cave systems or interior regions, have mandatory decompression time, gas mix adjustments, etc. The right mix of equipment depends on what you're doing, which is a decision of the pilot in command or divemaster. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:This thread has successfully convinced me that seatbelts in cars are a stupid idea because if we didn't have them we'd be better aware of the risk and drive so slowly that harmful accidents would not occur! Why doesn't your car have a 5 point harness like many aircraft?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why doesn't your car have a 5 point harness like many aircraft? We know that slower speeds reduce crash injuries. Why don't we prevent cars from going more than, say, 10 mph?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Trent posted:Also, I keep seeing posts about how planes are all 35 years old and can't be retrofitted. SO WHAT? We don't require old cars to have airbags and ABS installed. They can get 1 mpg or less and it's fine. Really old cars don't even have all the mirrors and break lights required today! They're grandfathered in! It will also force aircraft manufacturers to do a heap of design work on models that have been basically untouched in decades. This will raise prices for new aircraft further, meaning more people will stick with aging aircraft. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this policy cost a few lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:
Seat-belts and airbags kill more people than they save. :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We know that slower speeds reduce crash injuries. Why don't we prevent cars from going more than, say, 10 mph? We could literally cut down deaths and injuries by like 90% if all cars had rollcages, and helmets, fire suits and HANS devices were mandatory for occupants. Which makes the analogy invalid because the value of the parachute is extremely questionable 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
I think it would be sweet if cars were like that. Driving cars is super dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I think it would be sweet if cars were like that. Driving cars is super dangerous. Yeah man life is dangerous. I think we should start attaching emergency parachutes to everything that moves. We can mount one on my toilet seat so it doesn't close so fast and make so much noise in the middle of the night. We can call it. S.H.A.R.T. Seat Harness Arrester Recovery Tool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 12:56
|
|