Bonanza crash, KAPA 4/21/2012

[dennyleeb]

Your wadded-up knickers notwithstanding, the crash problem has very little to do with the type of airplane and very much to do with the type of pilot.

Thats what they say about cirrus as well.

I was just reading a article about that, here is a clip

If you listen to or read any forum messages where pilots discuss fatal aviation accidents, inevitably someone will blame an incompetent and inexperienced new pilot for making fatal mistakes and they move on. With the Cirrus owners in particular, lots of people blame the “new, young, rich entrepreneur” who gets a plane for all the wrong reasons. They claim that the Cirrus airplanes have become the new “must-have toy” for these rich people who have no business flying and they end up killing themselves and their passengers. Some people even blame Cirrus marketing for going after new pilots.
Unfortunately, such pilot discussions are rarely supported by any studies, statistics or proof to support the case against new pilots. These type of posts appear to be a way to convince the writer him or herself that fatal crashes happen to “other people” who are not competent. Since much of the pilot discussions blamed pilots with my exact background, my research into this matter became even more intense. I was afraid that if the overall statistics are “bad”, then for me (new, rich entrepreneur) flying a high-performance plane such as the Cirrus might be much worse.

sound familiar?

 

[steingar]

Thats what they say about cirrus as well.

I was just reading a article about that, here is a clip...sound familiar?

What is familiar about all the "killer" airplanes is that they boast high speed and efficiency. It does make sense that things will happen more quickly in a faster airplane, and that things will go farther south when the chips are down. That doesn't mean that they can't be safely flown by competent pilots.

 

[dennyleeb]

What is familiar about all the "killer" airplanes is that they boast high speed and efficiency. It does make sense that things will happen more quickly in a faster airplane, and that things will go farther south when the chips are down. That doesn't mean that they can't be safely flown by competent pilots.

I personally think there a plenty of competent pilots that have been killed in v-tail and cirrus aircraft. There are plent killed in all for that matter. However everyone wants to point to the same argument about those aircraft in particular. I personally think it is a very bad argument. I may give pilots to much credit.

 

[steingar]

I personally think there a plenty of competent pilots that have been killed in v-tail and cirrus aircraft. There are plent killed in all for that matter. However everyone wants to point to the same argument about those aircraft in particular. I personally think it is a very bad argument. I may give pilots to much credit.

I suspect if you review the accident statistics, pilots get into as many accidents in higher versus lower performance aircraft. My guess is that the results of crashes in high performance aircraft are more dramatic because of the higher energies involved.

One must also keep in mind that higher performance aircraft often serve a different mission than lower performance aircraft, serving in weather that many lower performance aircraft never see. Thus the decisions surround the fligh become far more complex, as do the tasks needed to complete it safely.

The "killer" moniker is given by journalists, who's knowledge of most things is limited to monosyllabic sound bites.

 

[wabower]

You're reading yesterday's paper. Many new models have inordinately high accident rates. Some are even subjected to post-certification review to determine/fix the "fatal flaw" that causes them to crash. Remember the MU-2 and the Malibu? What did the investigators conclude when the tests were completed? (If you've forgotten, they found the airframes to be well within the applicable standards.) When the crews were trained up, the accident rates dropped to normal.

Cirrus has pulled their hair for years trying to figure out why pilots buy the frigging parachutes and then refuse to use them when the chips are down. Maybe there's some applicability to the red-neck comedian's routine about "you can't fix stupid."

Thats what they say about cirrus as well.

I was just reading a article about that, here is a clip

If you listen to or read any forum messages where pilots discuss fatal aviation accidents, inevitably someone will blame an incompetent and inexperienced new pilot for making fatal mistakes and they move on. With the Cirrus owners in particular, lots of people blame the “new, young, rich entrepreneur” who gets a plane for all the wrong reasons. They claim that the Cirrus airplanes have become the new “must-have toy” for these rich people who have no business flying and they end up killing themselves and their passengers. Some people even blame Cirrus marketing for going after new pilots.
Unfortunately, such pilot discussions are rarely supported by any studies, statistics or proof to support the case against new pilots. These type of posts appear to be a way to convince the writer him or herself that fatal crashes happen to “other people” who are not competent. Since much of the pilot discussions blamed pilots with my exact background, my research into this matter became even more intense. I was afraid that if the overall statistics are “bad”, then for me (new, rich entrepreneur) flying a high-performance plane such as the Cirrus might be much worse.

sound familiar?