So, far the funding has been through my school in the form of a grant. It is my hope to find funding from any reputable source that will be willing to help me.
Since there is little comfort to be had in knowing that in a fatal accident, your corpse will be somewhat less damaged in a non-Cirrus, I don't think your findings have any merit in terms of choosing which plane to fly.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time I would like to remind you that it was a preponderance of autopsy data (backed up by later testing) that first pushed the automobile manufacturers to realize that shortcomings in their designs actually lead to a high percentage of the fatalities suffered in those vehicles. Granted, it has now been supplanted in that subset of injury pattern research by findings from survivors (or at least initial survivors), but the "deader than the others" is simply not giving an adequate consideration to the fact that in many of these victims did not die from one injury and many of them in fact may have survived (particularly those with thermal injuries as the proximate cause of death) if the structure of the aircraft held up better. I know of one case in North Carolina (in a Cessna by the way) that one of the persons on the plane managed to survive his injuries only to die from fire impingement upon the cockpit. Also, just because an injury is the cause of death, may not mean it was immediately fatal.
People used to believe that aortic trauma was invariably fatal (granted, it's still fatal in ~75% of cases), but people do survive and they need to be given the best chance possible. Flying in a high-tech Styrofoam cup full of 100LL is probably not giving them the best chance. It is not a chance I feel is a risk worth taking, but that's just me.
Granted, looking at those who are deceased has its limitations. I am first to admit that. However, it is the best we have at the moment and the data is more valid (when properly applied) and accepted than you are willing to give it credit for.
Also does your statement apply to all composite aircraft ie Diamonds and Columbias?
At the moment, no. I simply lack a sufficient number of cases involving these aircraft to even make a preliminary assessment.
If you subscribe to Flying Magazine, on Page 47 of the May 2007 issue had an interesting article titled, "When to Pull the Handle." It has a very intersting review on Cirrus accidents and use of the chute.
I don't subscribe, but I will find a copy of the article. Thank you for the advice.
As I said in that other thread, I have yet to see a fatal Cirrus accident in which a comparable accident in another type was survivable.
I tend to agree with this, and perhaps the nature of most of these accidents (high speed, often inverted or leaves the kind of mark only a groundskeeper would appreciate) has more to do with the oft quoted comment from you "Too much plane, not enough pilot" than with the aircraft itself. However, there are clearly issues with systems on board the aircraft that make it potentially less safe than other comparable aircraft. Does it not seem odd that when there is a fatal crash in a Cirrus, you don't occasionally have another person on that aircraft survive as occurs in some cases with other manufacturers? I will admit this is a casual observation, and I don't have enough data to say whether this relationship is truly there or not. However, it is better to look into the possibility and find out that it is not there (and then publish that data), than to simply assume that it does not and potentially cost someone their lives through inaction.
I really do value the input from yourself and everyone else on the project and my theories, for they will only make it easier to include what needs to be included and to see every side of the argument. Thank you for your dissent. If anyone else has any input, I would love to hear it.
Of course, if you're only looking at fatal accidents, those cases where a pilot would have died in another airplane but lived to tell the tale of his/her foolishness because of the BRS won't show up in your database.
OK, what about looking at it such as this: Everyone, including yourself I do believe, frequently states that the Cirrus models have a similar rate of fatal accidents. Now add in those where the BRS did deploy (which is a VERY small percentage of the accidents), excluding those where it was obviously either an inappropriate or accidental deployment. I know of two cases that would be excluded. One of these (the chute deployed on an otherwise functional aircraft in one of the European countries, France IIRC) was actually cited as a "save" by a Cirrus representative that I met once. He didn't like it that I point out that he needed to look up the definition of "save" in front of a group of potential customers.
My issue with the BRS is more with it being used to instill a false sense of security in low hour pilots who have no business being in the aircraft in question. Like I said, my choice not to fly in these aircraft is my own and based on the best evidence I have available. Everyone else is welcome to draw their own conclusions.
Well put, Ron. Although, as a non-doctor, I never thought about Doc Bruce's point...