Chute pulls are down. WAY down.

It is a fact.

It is a good thing. A VERY good thing.

Why is that a problem for you? Do you want more people needing to use it?

Mike C.

I don't know what you're basing your argument that chute pulls are down on. The trend over the last several years is clear. This chart is as of February this year. There have been 3 saves in 2015 so perhaps there will be less pull ins 2015 than 2014. But still on track to be above historic averages.

Mike, two comments. First, how low? A quick web search found an FAA medical study that suggested that the rate of pilot incapacitation was 92 of 30,447 accidents, 77 of 5,163 from 1975 to 1982. If I was a passenger in those flights, I'd be interested in another way to land the plane and survive.

Second, risk is a combination of probability and severity, how often something happens and the consequences of what happens. If the probability of pilot incapacitation is infrequent but the severity is my death, then I'm really, really motivated to find another way to land the plane and survive. Because I really don't like the outcome if it happens.

Cheers
Rick

Not when you normalize for fleet size, though 2014 is definitely above the trend. 2015 is definitely on track for being way below past history.

It is very clear to me that you want the way 2015 is going far more than the way 2014 went.

Mike C.

Nate, an oft-overlooked aspect of the dramatic reduction in accidents within the Cirrus community has been the results came from internal efforts -- not outside regulation, insurance requirements, type ratings, or Cirrus-bashers. Unlike the SFAR requirements for the MU-2 that produced dramatic reductions, no similar actions were taken for Cirrus airplanes. Insurance companies didn't place onerous training requirements. And discussions about Cirrus on aviation forums didn't do it either.

Despite years and years of calls for more training and greater safety in general aviation, the Cirrus community did something different -- we, Cirrus community, analyzed the specific factors from accident investigations and created (and delivered) interventions that changed the mindset of pilots flying Cirrus aircraft. Smart, generous and dedicated people did it -- internally.

We saw too many pilots making well-known mistakes and crashing safe airplanes. We saw too many pilots not using the safety features, especially the parachute but also the advanced avionics in the glass cockpits. We saw too many pilots making poor decisions while flying.

No one thing changed everything. But the inexorable commitment to flying safely did. We brought together changes in mantras, preflight planning, risk management, checklists, instruction, flight reviews, recurrent training, publicity of safe outcomes, and even innovations in aviation safety features.

The COPA Culture of Safety emerged from all of that. Our expectations changed. And Cirrus pilots have responded well -- so far -- because we are not done yet as we grow the fleet by 300 airplanes a year!

Communities of pilots who fly the same type, like ABS and Beechtalk, are the places where similar interventions can make a difference. We'll serve GA well if more communities succeed.

Cheers
Rick

Your data fails sanity check. It implies that during the 8 years 1975 to 1982, the rate of pilot incapacitation was *25 TIMES* the rate outside those years.

That is, 77 events in 5163 accidents in those years, 15 events in 25,284 accidents outside those years. There is no reasonable mechanism for that much of a change.

The data must have some built in bias during those 8 years, such as a redefinition of what incapacitation means, or a different method of collecting the data, or some other hidden assumption. In any case, one should not draw conclusions from insane numbers.

Further, of those supposed 92 events, how many afflicted ONLY the pilot AND had at least one passenger on board AND were fatal to passengers? Now I think we are talking about microscopic numbers.


They have that, land the plane.

I find news articles where pilots pass out and passengers land the plane. Seems to be fairly common.

I've yet to find an instance where the pilot passes out due to something that affected ONLY them, and the passengers die. Surely that exits, right?

I suspect the most common incapacitation events are hypoxia and CO poisoning. Those don't count since they affect passengers as well. You need something that goes wrong with the pilot independently of the passengers. Go back to your 92 instances and find those.

Further, passengers can get training, pinch hitter's course or a bit of primary training, so any passenger who worries about this can do something to deal with the problem.


Numbers, please. I suspect the rate of death is WAY less than 100%. That is an assumption you have made with no basis.

Based on what I read, I think the chance of a non fatal outcome with a passenger landing the plane is pretty high. I haven't found an example where the passenger dies, though I suspect there are some, one would think.

And the final thought: 6+ million Cirrus hours, not one case of the chute being used by a passenger when the pilot was incapacitated.

The "pilot incapacitation" argument preys on the fears of passengers and is a good marketing tactic, but these concerns are way out of proportion to the actual risk.

Mike C.

I noted that back in January:

What will the next 3 years bring? Don't know. If Cirrus pilots manage to keep the trend going, they will have demonstrated a remarkable change in accident history by changing only the mindset of the pilots. The plane is identical. I've been through such a project myself, but that was with regulatory force. The Cirrus change is entirely community driven.

I think it is remarkable, close to miraculous.


I do believe they give a discount for this sort of training, so they have some influence.


I think the post accident/chute pull analysis DOES help. In fact, I think the number one impact is the virtual experience of taking every Cirrus pilot through accidents. That brings the benefits of having experienced the accident without having to experience the accident. As you know, this is done in great detail every time it occurs.

I think you have underestimated the value of the forum discussions. If all I had was news and NTSB reports, I would learn so little about each occurrence.


The Cirrus community finally came to grips with the fact the chute doesn't make you safe, the pilot does.

Had the chute "worked" out of the box when introduced, there would have been no need for this community based rethink to make the Cirrus as safe as it is right now.

Mike C.

While I agree that "the chute doesn't make you safer, the pilot does", when an off airport landing is inevitable because of mechanical difficulty, gross pilot error ect. it is nice to know that there is a means of last resort to stay alive.
This mornings fatal BE35 is a good example. Reason unknown but an attempt to land on the railroad tracks ended with one fatality. I grew up in that town. Originally it was potato farms and alfalfa fields but now is densly packed housing. A chute descent at 17 mph might have had a better ending, assuming this was not a medical event

Mike C. - Had the chute been used more "out of the box" then the record would have been different. Initially Cirrus pilots had been trained just like other pilots to land the plane wherever they could get to. You seem to discount that fact. Also, initially, all Cirrus pilots were low time in type. We are now seeing a much higher percentage of pilots who have more than 300 hours of time in type. Furthermore, if the chute leads to risky behavior and the improvement is just training then what is with Beech? The CPPP is modeled after the BPPP.

The implication is that the need for the chute has remained the same and the change is that pilots are now using it more often.

In 2011, 16 fatal accidents and 3 chute "saves". So in 2011, there were 19 times the chute was NEEDED despite the fact it was used only 3 times.

In 2015, we are on pace for about 8 total events (fatals + saves). The fleet is bigger now, too, so when taking all that in consideration, the NEED for the chute was down about 65%.

This shows me the NEED for the chute changed when the pilots got educated.

Now 2015 is looking to be a great year, so what about 2014 with so many chute pulls? Even there, it was 14 events (fatals + pulls), which makes it down 30% from 2011 when considering fleet size changes.

If we further assume that SOME (probably MOST) of the chute pulls are not truly fatal accidents averted, then the improvement in chute NEED is even more dramatic in recent times.

The pilot training has caused the pilots to not NEED the chute as much. This is a really great outcome.

Mike C.

Who gives a rip about the actual data related to pilot incapacitation? Many of us fly our ladies in our birds and many of these ladies, while very lovely, do not respond well to data and facts and simply 'feel' more comfortable and safer in different aircraft. You could show me data that there was 0.00% chance of pilot incapacitation ever occurring and I'd still opt for an SR22 it because my wife would feel safer and be more comfortable flying with me because she has a genuine concern about pilot incapacitation. We've spoken many times about her taking a pinch hitter course but the reality is that she really would rather not take the course. She simply wants to feel safe and secure.

It may not be a real benefit to a number cruncher but when someone's wife will happily come along on any flight because it has a chute, THAT has substantial value to many pilots.

For those who say "It's just marketing", I say well yes it is. In fact, it's BRILLIANT marketing. Marketing 101 says: Understand your market. Anticipate their needs and then satisfy them with a new solution. Cirrus did all these quite well and is one of the reasons for their success.

+1 Don

I think I started all this saying my wife will fly with me because of the Chute, and her fear was what if something happened to me while we were in the air. Some people just DO NOT GET IT they think giving someone with this fear data will make it all better. You are so correct that my wife does not give a rip about data no matter how small the data says the risk is. For her the fear is very real and the chute is what she uses in her mind to overcome not only that fear but also other fears about mechanical failure, night flying, etc. As I said in a prior post we go over the procedure for what she would do almost everytime we fly. We flew again last night and went through it all again. I am so happy to go over it with her everytime because I know that makes it more comfortable for her. In fact last night after going through it she said (that just makes me feel so much better. I know it probably would never happen but if it did I feel like I could do it !!!!!!!! )

Here is my data: My wife will fly with me now !!!!!!!!!!!!

She has flown with more times in the last 1.5 years then in my two other planes combined, and 3 times in the last two weeks including a date night last night where we flew to dinner and back. That did not happen in my last two planes so I could care less about the data.

Her getting in the plane with me has changed our lives that is all the data I need

Mike C. - I think your assumption that MOST CAPS pulls wouldn't have result in a fatality if CAPS wasn't used is unfounded and I disagree with it. If your premise is true, then are Cirrus pilot really that much better than Bonanza pilots? I seem to believe it is CAPS and you seem to think that It's that Cirrus pilots are a lot better than Bonanza pilots. If Cirrus pilots attended CPPP's and there was no Bonanza equivalent then I might take your idea more seriously.

The women I know can handle data and facts, so I concede I don't have experience dealing with your situation.

Mike C.

It is a great debate topic. There is no way to prove or disprove it.

I think somewhere about 30% of CAPS pulls are truly fatals averted. Lots of urgent situations in flying are not nearly as fatal as people think. Some are blindingly obvious (like Gilgandra, huge flat open field in super clear nice weather), others not so much.

I will point out that two times the chute was activated and the chute failed to deploy properly. In BOTH cases, there were no fatalities, the pilots brought the planes down without a chute after they expected to have one.


I think so recently, though I have not done any numerical assessment. So far, only 2 fatals in 2015 is a pretty good change for Cirrus. It feels like Bonanzas have been falling out of the sky recently at an alarming rate.


That's is a reasonably accurate statement of my position.

Whether or not Cirrus pilots are better than Bonanza pilots, Cirrus pilots are better then they were years ago (when they might have been worse than Bonanza pilots). About 25 of them (and some number of passengers) are alive today that would have been projected to have died in the last ~3.5 years if the trend had not changed.

Mike C.