We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper
Comments
-
There was a case a year or two ago where an elderly pilot got disoriented, so he pulled the CAPS lever and drifted down safely into someone's garden. I bet he wasn't worried about the loss of the aircraft or his insurance premiums going up if he continues flying.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0
-
There was a case a year or two ago where an elderly pilot got disoriented, so he pulled the CAPS lever and drifted down safely into someone's garden. I bet he wasn't worried about the loss of the aircraft or his insurance premiums going up if he continues flying.
As I said, there's a long conversation to be had around the benefits or otherwise of the Cirrus CAPS system.
Pilot disorientation raises more questions around competency and currency than it does around the aircraft.
In other situations, the aircraft has proved unrecoverable in situations that other aircraft may have been recoverable from.
If I enter a stall and spin in a Cessna then provided there is enough altitude between me and the ground then I can utilise recovery procedures and fly it out relatively easily and it's certified to do so.
If I enter a stall and spin in a Cirrus it is not certified to handle it or designed to recover from it, and the approved procedure is to pull the 'chute. Which results in loss of the aircraft but in most cases survival of the occupants.
I'd prefer to save both aircraft and occupants if I can....
Don't get me wrong Cirrus make great airplanes, but they are very high performance machines pushing towards the outer limits of what is possible with the tradeoff between price/performance/stability and safety.
If you're an experienced commercial pilot used to high performance machines they pose no problem.
If you're an enthusiastic, rich amateur trading up to high performance they can get you in serious trouble very quickly.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
You'd not get me off the ground in a tin can ... no matter how many/how posh any alleged escape mechanism is.0
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »As I said, there's a long conversation to be had around the benefits or otherwise of the Cirrus CAPS system.
Pilot disorientation raises more questions around competency and currency than it does around the aircraft.
In other situations, the aircraft has proved unrecoverable in situations that other aircraft may have been recoverable from.
If I enter a stall and spin in a Cessna then provided there is enough altitude between me and the ground then I can utilise recovery procedures and fly it out relatively easily and it's certified to do so.
If I enter a stall and spin in a Cirrus it is not certified to handle it or designed to recover from it, and the approved procedure is to pull the 'chute. Which results in loss of the aircraft but in most cases survival of the occupants.
I'd prefer to save both aircraft and occupants if I can....
Don't get me wrong Cirrus make great airplanes, but they are very high performance machines pushing towards the outer limits of what is possible with the tradeoff between price/performance/stability and safety.
If you're an experienced commercial pilot used to high performance machines they pose no problem.
If you're an enthusiastic, rich amateur trading up to high performance they can get you in serious trouble very quickly.
I wonder if there's an element of self selection here, too. Duff pilots, who know they are duff, will choose a Cirrus. For example, the pilot I mentioned, who was past his sell by date as far as flying is concerned, so he bought himself a bit of extra insurance with CAPS, rather than giving up flying.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I wonder if there's an element of self selection here, too. Duff pilots, who know they are duff, will choose a Cirrus. For example, the pilot I mentioned, who was past his sell by date as far as flying is concerned, so he bought himself a bit of extra insurance with CAPS, rather than giving up flying.
Don't know....
Rich (so usually older) but inexperienced pilots have often bought into the latest fad or high performance machines, but it is usually demonstrably the case that they'd be safer in an older and slower plane.
Cirrus tried to break that paradigm.
Not sure they succeeded.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Self pitying post alert.
Each member of the family has dropped in succession with a bug this week. Thought I might escape. No such luck. Up all night. Exhausted
Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
0 -
Doozergirl wrote: »Self pitying post alert.
Each member of the family has dropped in succession with a bug this week. Thought I might escape. No such luck. Up all night. Exhausted
As one of the world's leading amateur Econimo-Gastroenterologists I recommend a day curled up on the sofa with a compliant family member supplying you with food, drinks and entertainment as necessary.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Don't know....
Rich (so usually older) but inexperienced pilots have often bought into the latest fad or high performance machines, but it is usually demonstrably the case that they'd be safer in an older and slower plane.
Cirrus tried to break that paradigm.
Not sure they succeeded.
Interesting... the guy we were speaking to was a former Vietnam War pilot who also flew commercially (cargo) and flew aerobatics as prior to that his family travelled the Midwest doing stunts in old biplanes. I don't know whether he had CAPS or an alternative (more DH's ballpark than mine). However the guy as you can imagine was definitely getting on a bit, maybe he saw CAPS as a way of continuing flying.
My own knowledge of such activity only runs as far as The Red Bull Air Race series.
Glad you had fun though. Equally glad I wasn't in the plane with you, I don't like flying and find it scary, even though I have to do it.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »Interesting... the guy we were speaking to was a former Vietnam War pilot who also flew commercially (cargo) .
Thats the level of experience really suited to some of these newer high performance aircraft IMO.
I think many of the people who do get in trouble in them seem to be relatively inexperienced pilots stepping up to high performance and they can be a bit unforgiving, hence the recovery chute. There's no doubt the system has saved lives and it's a wonderfully clever innovation, but the number of accidents for those aircraft types does seem unusually high.
I suppose the question is does it encourage such a sense of security that pilots end up doing things they shouldn't in it, flying an aircraft that is too high performance for their abilities, or flying the aircraft into risky situations better avoided? Given the high rate of accidents there's probably an argument that it does, and so while its good the chutes have saved lives, many of those accidents may not have occurred in the first place with a different aircraft?
Actually, this is exactly the sort of question the Freakonomics guys should have a look at...:)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
Oh, it makes me happy....
Do you take passengers? It sounds like a blast.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards