Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on December 29, 2006, 10:41:26 AM
-
Dude collided with a banner tower's cable, ensnared his engine - and he popped the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0v9fGVs8M
-
Those parachutes are pretty dang cool. I'm of mixed feeling about them, but they're undeniably useful in some situations.
My concerns about them are this:
1. That some pilots might use the fact that they have the chute to decide to fly when they shouldn't. "Sure, it's instrument conditions, but if anything happens, I'll just pull the chute" isn't proper risk management, it's taking an emergency backup measure and turning it into a primary flight planning tool, an action which inherently reduces safety. This can be fixed through education, but the number of Cirrus crashes seems to suggest that this education isn't happening yet with the largest trackable segment of GA that uses the chutes.
2. The non-pilots might make the determination that ALL airplanes should have this. Seatbelt and helmet laws prove that government has no problem using central authority to legislate personal responsibility. This is bad for liberty, and there are plenty of planes that don't have the spare performance to take on the extra weight, not to mention the financial hardship this would place on people. This concern can probably be alleviated through education too, but unfortunately that education would probably have to come via lobbying groups like AOPA, and I grow less and less convinced that they represent the interests of small pilots.
3. See #1. It's worth mentioning twice.
I'm perfectly comfortable flying in a plane without them, but I can see the utility of investing in something like this if it becomes practical. While I think I could safely land in the vast majority of failure modes I'm likely to encounter, the video posted yesterday demonstrated that there's always something out there you might not expect that can get ya. Most of GA doesn't have the opportunity to join the Martin-Baker club, so this might be the closest equivalent for the non-military pilot. Dunno, it's a thinker.
-
Nice dig, Wolf.
-
interesting video. Nice find Wolfala.:aok
Chairboy brings up a good point on these though. Even if these emergency chutes will save an airplane from every conceivable unlandable emergency they are no substitute for pilot-training in avoiding and handling emergencies.
But:
Originally posted by Chairboy
The non-pilots might make the determination that ALL airplanes should have this. Seatbelt and helmet laws prove that government has no problem using central authority to legislate personal responsibility. This is bad for liberty,
Sorry, I don't see where liberty comes into it. As far as I can see this is about as much a threat to liberty as having to have an ELT installed in your airplane.
Cheers,
asw
-
Wow. Decrying a loss of liberty over something that could save your life.
That's a new mark for you.
-
To clarify, my objection is to the possibility of the government requiring that all aircraft have this, not to the device itself.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
LePaul: Having a breathalyzer built into your car that you'd have to blow into every time might save your life. Is it ok for the government to require it? Next, putting a camera in your house (including bathroom) might save your life. Most fatalities are medical or accidents that happen in or around the home. A nice operator watching the video screens might have saved Elvis by sending a paramedic when he got a heart attack on the toilet. Are you ok with the government legislating it?
My point is that not everything that might help you should be required by law.
-
I wouldn't oppose brethalyizers in cars. I'd have a couple very good friends still alive today if they were. If I'm not mistaken they have these now for some DUI "rehabilated" folks.
Just because it's your "right" to drive drunk and get caught once. Is it also your right to endanger everyone else out there by doing so?
-
Using the 'chute as an excuse to fly when you shouldn't is kinda bogus. That means you are basically saying the trip is worth the loss of the aircraft. Popping the 'chute does not save the plane, per se, it saves the occupants. The plane will have significant damage on landing as the chute merely makes the impact with the ground survivable for the ccupants, not the bird. The landing point is also up for grabs and you have no control over where you are going once the rip cord is pulled. Any pilot who uses that reasoning needs to have their cert. pulled and permanently.
Golfer, no one in this country has a right to drive drunk, ever. You do not have a right to drive period, it's a priveledge, just like flying and can be revoked.
-
Chair,
I just think you are over-reacting.
You certainly have a right to your opinion. (Even if they strike me as extremely paranoid.)
I just can't imagine someone saying "geez, I wish I didnt have to have that recovery system there to save my life in the event of a catastrophic failure".
It just rates up there with someone saying "Gosh darn it, my computer has too much ram and runs too well."
That's just my take on it.
-
LePaul, where did I say that? I said I'd probably get one for my plane, I just hope the government doesn't make it a mandatory piece of equipment. How is expressing that opinion an overreaction?
-
Yeah the chute thing is cool, but I wanna know what happened to either pilots SA and why did the guy in the the homebuilt pulled up instead of down, cause from what I saw he pulled up right into the line.
-
Annnnd welcome to this weeks episode with your host, Wolf14!
(http://www.localna8ion.com/wp-images/mmquarterback.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Annnnd welcome to this weeks episode with your host, Wolf14!
Well somebody was going to say it eventualy. I just wanted to be the first to state the obvious. Hell when I was learnig to fly the glider, it was always drilled into my head to always be aware of what was around you at all times. Never stop looking. Granted things happen, but judging from the video it appeared to me two pilots had their thumbs in the wrong place.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
LePaul, where did I say that? I said I'd probably get one for my plane, I just hope the government doesn't make it a mandatory piece of equipment. How is expressing that opinion an overreaction?
Chair,
It's not going to happen. They can't retrofit lots of other aircraft for the 'chute. Both the chute and the aircraft have limitations that prohibit it.
-
There are some pretty rigid standards to mount a BRS on an aircraft. Our BD-5 Group was investigating modifying the design to allow for a BRS on one. Its just not feasible in this design. (i.e. a pusher-prop system)
So, fear not...a BRS wont work for every aircraft. And modding one for it is a pretty extensive engineering process.
Thinking the gov't would require a very expensive rocket/chute deployment system does strike me as an over-reaction, dude.
-
LePaul: Very well, let's see how outrageous of an idea it is.
Does anyone else here think that it's possible that the government may at some point introduce a requirement that aircraft have something like a BRS as standard equipment? Or am I a crazy loony cakes for thinking it's even possible? Also, does mentioning that "I hope it doesn't happen" make me a wild-eyed crazy person who's massively over-reacting to some unspecified thing?
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Does anyone else here think that it's possible that the government may at some point introduce a requirement that aircraft have something like a BRS as standard equipment? :D
I do. I guess I'm a crazy looney cakes as well. If not for everyplane, then at least for planes that can accomodate the modification for its use.
Kinda like how you dont have to wear seatbelts if your in a 1ton vehicle or larger. Unless of course they changed that law as well.
-
A seat belt and a $35,000 Ballastic Parachute System are two entirely different things. That's the point I'm trying to make.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
A seat belt and a $35,000 Ballastic Parachute System are two entirely different things. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I see your point dude, but you know the TV world was doing fine as it was. You didnt have a nation in an uproar over the quality of their TV signal, but yet two congressman more or less have made it a government mandate that all broadcast TV stations are to go to digital HD transmissions out of their own pocket.
On top of that they arent giving any handouts for us poor folks who have to go out and eventualy buy a new tv set so we can get weather updates out in the boonies with our fancy shmancy HD tv sets cause in the end there will be no analog transmissions and the freed up analog frequencies are going back to the FCC to be used for emergency services.
So yes in the end we are going to have a bunch of little nancy's crying about every plane that just has to have one of these fancy lil parachutes so everybody will be safer and it will be at the cost of the owner.
They did it with TV why cant they do it to general aviation?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
LePaul: Very well, let's see how outrageous of an idea it is.
Does anyone else here think that it's possible that the government may at some point introduce a requirement that aircraft have something like a BRS as standard equipment? Or am I a crazy loony cakes for thinking it's even possible? Also, does mentioning that "I hope it doesn't happen" make me a wild-eyed crazy person who's massively over-reacting to some unspecified thing?
:D
I'd see it as a possible certification requirement to designs after a specified date, say 2007. But not as a required AD for say, a DC-3 or aircraft designed before that time.
-
Wolfy,
I have to disagree with you. I don't see it for a certification requirement as you can't pilot proof an airplane. Since the thing has been first put in a plane it has done a nice job but it cannot take the place of competance in the pilot.
-
Fair enough,
We'll have to see what comes down the Feds road. They typically lag by 10 years anyway - so there is hope for humanity. But seeing as our engines are still 1930's technology, 10 years is probably ambitious.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Wolfy,
I have to disagree with you. I don't see it for a certification requirement as you can't pilot proof an airplane. Since the thing has been first put in a plane it has done a nice job but it cannot take the place of competance in the pilot.
Mav, I do agree with your statement because it is very true. I guess what I am trying to say is that those who will make the laws wont think that way. They'll see this great idea and regardless what they are told otherwise or to the contrary about how it wont fit every plane, all they will see is that by putting this chute on a plane it will save lives. So they will do whatever it takes to pull all the other unedumacated folks to their side on the premise that this add on should be guberment mandated because it saves lives. Who cares about the logistics of making it practical.
So competant pilot or not, it is just a matter of time before some legislative type trying to earn browny points with voters will try to pass something making it madatory.
I have ran into similar instances where I used to work with reporters/ producers/ news directors, reporting stories that involved the use of a 9mm, .40, and .45 caliber "Automatic" handgun instead of "Semi-Automatic". Regardless of what information I supplied to prove my point, they still always called them "Automatic" weapons. Then they wonder why folks dont give them props for reliable and accurate news reporting.
I dont see our law makers much different.
-
Wolf,
A pilot's reaction to a hazardous situation depends almost entirely on their training and experience. If you look at the actions of the tow plane and the response of the guy with the vid camera, you see two completely different reactions, but neither is entirely correct.
The tow plane pilot saw the impending collision and made a very aggressive climbing maneuver. This would be fine, except that he's towing a banner that hangs up to around 100 ft below his plane so he not only has to maneuver his own plane around a collision, he also needs to consider where he's maneuvering the banner. A more appropriate maneuver may have been to push over and dive.
The other pilot saw the near miss, and immediately began what you might call a "wtf?" gentle climb. This is very nearly instinctive and is what you would expect from an inexperienced or untrained pilot. There isn't much that would have been more appropriate except for a better visual lookout and a deliberate maneuver (or non-maneuver) instead of the sort of wimpy gradual climb that like I said, is what you'd expect someone who has no plan or idea what's going on would do.
Most pilots I've flown with, including many many students and even myself when a new pilot, will begin a gradual climb when unsure of what's going on and when reacting to an unexpected situation. Even if this is a totally inappropriate response, this is still the natural tendency. For example, pilots faced with a reducing ceiling of clouds will often pull up into the clouds instead of simply turning around and remaining VFR, and pilots who have an emergency situation when flying below a cloud deck will also often climb into the cloud instead of troubleshooting VFR. Negative G's are very uncomfortable, emergency maneuvering, and unusual attitudes are not generally taught to private pilots to a level that really give them full mastery of their aircraft. As evidenced by the results of the airbus incident where pilot actions and screwed up rudder deflection gains in the flight control software resulted in the pilots ripping off the tail, even professional commercial pilots sometimes do not receive sufficient training in how to aggressively maneuver their aircraft WHEN NECESSARY. That training not only teaches them how aggressively fly their plane but it also teaches them how to identify a situation where aggressive maneuvering is required and how to select and immediately implement the appropriate maneuver.
When I'm flying and I see an impending collision, because of my training I am just as likely to push over to avoid the collision as I am to pull, because I've been deliberately taught to pick the appropriate maneuver instead of just blindly pulling on the controls when things start to go bad.
In that video, IMHO the tow pilot should have pushed over and the other dude should have either continued to fly straight or made some sort of immediate aggressive maneuver. The middle ground, wimpy "uhhh I"m scared so I'll just sorta climb a bit" response is rarely helpful.
That said, there is no substitute for a good visual lookout. I don't really think poorly of the pilots for not seeing the other plane because I've been there and just about run into a few other aircraft in my 18ish years of flying, but they almost died because they prioritized something above their visual lookout and it bit them hard.
-
Sure Eagl,
Not drawing excuses for them - see and avoid is 90% of it. Had enough close calls in my career to know the guy on the other end had blue eyes or the color of his **** stain. Seeing as the incident occured over in Europe, I dunno how they train guys there but I don't think communication is one of their strong suits judging from the guys who've come over the pond to train in the U.S., atleast in my experience with training them. Think part of this might stem from the heavy regulation and pay as you go for services mentality.
But its easy to see how a guy like that in what is no more then a LSA could think he was the only guy in the air - i mean, look outside his front window.
Bottom line, he could've bought it - but got lucky.