And an effect on pilot judgment beyond any other single which causes danger.

If you disagree, then explain why the accident record is getting better by changing how Cirrus pilots think.


That is debatable. Planes with worse damage have landed under control. It was not an absolutely fatal situation, it isn't an absolutely non fatal condition either.





There is some damage to the right wing but most of it is still there and the left wing and the tail are undamaged. I suspect the odds are at least 75% that this plane could have been flown to a safe landing.

Note that some of the damage was from landing in the trees, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Pulling the chute was the right thing to do, but it didn't necessarily "save" a life in this particular instance.

Mike C.

Thank you for taking the time to do this. It is very interesting. If you were to take the ratio of flying time between the two types given the numbers David Johnson derived from Controller what would the comparison look like?

To your point above it is heartening to see your data in line, more or less, with those of Rick Beach showing that Cirrus rates are improving. As you know there has been a very concerted effort by COPA and Cirrus to impact these rates through better, more focused and more frequent training. That appears to be having its impact.

It is distressing to see TAA accident rates, in general, remaining no better, or worse than the overall GA rate. It just shows its the monkey running the machine, not the machine, that has the biggest impact on outcomes.

Have you seen any comparisons of GA accident data comparing IFR flying in the U.S. to Europe? While it may be too early to tell with EASA IFR training requirements you would expect to see lower accident rates if more rigorous training is the answer.

Page 18, item 3
http://www.epats.eu/Files/Deliverables/ ... ase-V1.pdf

EASA does not have the data to compare safety.

Tim

Page 18, item 3
http://www.epats.eu/Files/Deliverables/ ... ase-V1.pdf

EASA does not have the data to compare safety.

Tim

Actually no, I read it a few weeks ago and still had it in my history list
I have a topic I would like to eventual start but I do not have the philosophical arguments straight enough yet (I like to figure out all sides as much as possible first).

Tim

I did my own survey of Controller.com (not an easy task, some planes are duplicated so I have to track registration numbers to be sure each data point is unique) and came up with:

Cirrus: 127.9 hours/year (very close to my 125 hour number)

Corvalis: 90.4 hours/year

Net effect is a 1.4 multiplier on Corvalis rates.

This all assumes that aircraft for sale represent the fleet in general. I'm a little dubious of that.

Note that due to the few Corvalis for sale, their number could go up or down significantly depending on which airplanes are for sale. In other words, looking at this in 3 months could yield a different number.

Not so much with Cirrus.


Making a GA airplane safer has not generally lowered the number of accident it has.

Training the pilots more, better, different does make a difference.

The data suggest conclusively that the chute was affecting pilot judgment. The training is realigning the "chute factor".


Same theme: TAA makes you feel empowered to go in more difficult situations.

Pilot fly to their risk tolerance. Anything that lowers risk allows that risk credit to be spent elsewhere. That is why it has been so hard to lower accident rates.


My intuition says it isn't any better over there.

While the IFR ticket may be harder to get in the EU, in the US we have better facilities, information systems, and we fly more due to lower cost, no user fees, and less hassle. Being IFR rated in Europe is unusual, in US it is normal.

Mike C.

And an effect on pilot judgment beyond any other single which causes danger.

If you disagree, then explain why the accident record is getting better by changing how Cirrus pilots think.


That is debatable. Planes with worse damage have landed under control. It was not an absolutely fatal situation, it isn't an absolutely non fatal condition either.





There is some damage to the right wing but most of it is still there and the left wing and the tail are undamaged. I suspect the odds are at least 75% that this plane could have been flown to a safe landing.

Note that some of the damage was from landing in the trees, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Pulling the chute was the right thing to do, but it didn't necessarily "save" a life in this particular instance.

Mike C.

1) making a configuration change to a damaged but flying plane is a poor choice. If you have a half-broken plane that is flying LEAVE IT ALONE.

2) mike said pulling the chute was the right thing to do.

3) there are many, many examples of planes landing after significant midairs. The idea that the plane could have landed isn't delusional. 33%? 50%? 75%? You could argue the numbers, but it's non-zero and reasonable to say it's 75%.

You don't know with certainty, you can only make a probability judgment based on the data you have.


Is this that accident?

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... 182&akey=1

I think you've misrepresented the damage this airplane had. This was no "dent", the wings were crushed back to the forward spar, and both wings were affected. Sounds like they flew through geese in formation and had multiple strikes.

The leading edge of the left wing and the leading edge outboard of the wing strut attach point on the right wing were crushed aft. The left wing leading edge skin area inboard of the landing light cutout was folded inboard, and outboard from the landing light cutout was folded outboard. The aileron and flap control surfaces remained attached at the respective attach points. The left wing was separated from its respective mounts and remained attached to the fuselage by the control cables. The right wing was partially separated from the fuselage. The left and right wing struts remained attached. The tip of the left wing was found bent upwards approximately 45 degrees where it started approximately three feet inboard from the wingtip and progressing to the rear spar at the wingtip rib attach point.

Examination of the left wing revealed a portion of the leading edge was displaced aft to the forward wing spar, approximately one inch outboard from the landing light cutout measuring approximately three feet in length.

The leading edge of the right wing was crushed aft to the forward wing spar just outboard from the windshield. The damage was consistent with an impact from the upper right corner of the cabin structure, just aft of the engine cowling, where a handhold is mounted.


Both wings attached. Right aileron missing, presume both ailerons don't work. Have full tail surfaces, so rudder for directional control. That seems pretty flyable to me, so I assess a 75% chance of landing it. More pictures from different angles and closer would help improve this assessment, but those are the best I could find.

Mike C.

Maybe under stress they mistakenly did something out of habit like put in the flaps, we'll never know, it's certainly a possibility. Those "possibilities" that we never understand are also the key to a lot of accidents. Pulling a chute is pretty simple and perhaps that alone is part of the value.

Depends on how you slice it. Two aircraft collided, one had a chute and walked away, the others all died. The rest is just opinion and speculation, but yes I understand and agree that people have landed after a mid-air.

You don't know with certainty, you can only make a probability judgment based on the data you have.


Is this that accident?

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... 182&akey=1

I think you've misrepresented the damage this airplane had. This was no "dent", the wings were crushed back to the forward spar, and both wings were affected. Sounds like they flew through geese in formation and had multiple strikes.

The leading edge of the left wing and the leading edge outboard of the wing strut attach point on the right wing were crushed aft. The left wing leading edge skin area inboard of the landing light cutout was folded inboard, and outboard from the landing light cutout was folded outboard. The aileron and flap control surfaces remained attached at the respective attach points. The left wing was separated from its respective mounts and remained attached to the fuselage by the control cables. The right wing was partially separated from the fuselage. The left and right wing struts remained attached. The tip of the left wing was found bent upwards approximately 45 degrees where it started approximately three feet inboard from the wingtip and progressing to the rear spar at the wingtip rib attach point.

Examination of the left wing revealed a portion of the leading edge was displaced aft to the forward wing spar, approximately one inch outboard from the landing light cutout measuring approximately three feet in length.

The leading edge of the right wing was crushed aft to the forward wing spar just outboard from the windshield. The damage was consistent with an impact from the upper right corner of the cabin structure, just aft of the engine cowling, where a handhold is mounted.


Both wings attached. Right aileron missing, presume both ailerons don't work. Have full tail surfaces, so rudder for directional control. That seems pretty flyable to me, so I assess a 75% chance of landing it. More pictures from different angles and closer would help improve this assessment, but those are the best I could find.

Mike C.

The chute is not a deity that has to be respected. It is a great safety tool! But acknowledging that doesn't prohibit an intellectually honest discussion of what it does and doesn't do. Mid airs are about 50% fatal. Pull 10 chutes and that was 5 saves - not a hard concept.

The NTSB indicated both wings had been hit.

The two circled areas match the NTSB description of the bird strike damage and don't appear to be impact damage.

Those are some pretty big "dents".

The pilot said he was unable to maintain directional control, even with full power: "We can't keep it straight with the power on". This suggests full rudder and power was unable to counteract the asymmetric drag caused by the damage.

Witness statement: "wings of the Cessna 172 were pitching (alternating) up and down looking uncontrollable. The tail of the airplane was swinging from side to side."

I could find nothing in the NTSB report that indicated control was established, and then lost after flaps deployed. If that was actually the sequence, then putting the flaps down was a bad move.

It is hard to imagine wing damage where flaps down makes things worse. Flaps reduce wing shape sensitivity, not increase it.

Flaps were found in the 20 degree position. Putting flaps down increases directional stability, so perhaps the pilot tried that when he was unable to handle it flaps up.

If the 172 had a chute, this would have been a time when it would have saved lives.

Mike C.

You know you make agreeing with you hard?

The NTSB indicated both wings had been hit.

The two circled areas match the NTSB description of the bird strike damage and don't appear to be impact damage.

Those are some pretty big "dents".

The pilot said he was unable to maintain directional control, even with full power: "We can't keep it straight with the power on". This suggests full rudder and power was unable to counteract the asymmetric drag caused by the damage.

Witness statement: "wings of the Cessna 172 were pitching (alternating) up and down looking uncontrollable. The tail of the airplane was swinging from side to side."

I could find nothing in the NTSB report that indicated control was established, and then lost after flaps deployed. If that was actually the sequence, then putting the flaps down was a bad move.

It is hard to imagine wing damage where flaps down makes things worse. Flaps reduce wing shape sensitivity, not increase it.

Flaps were found in the 20 degree position. Putting flaps down increases directional stability, so perhaps the pilot tried that when he was unable to handle it flaps up.

Mike C.