It is really embarrassing trying to tell non pilot passengers to ignore the waving fuel gauge and low fuel alarm, as “just one of those things you know”, before I launch them skywards.
Viewing substandard engineering through nostalgic rose tinted glasses does not detract from the fact it is inexcusable, and dangerous.
I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you cannot conduct a safe flight with the aircraft you fly, then don’t fly them. A Cirrus or a new Diamond is state of the art, fly those instead. Or rather, a modern microlight (a high tech version) with a BRS is probably a safer option due to their low stall speed, making it possible for a dead stick landing everywhere and walking away afterward. If you break the wing, pull the chute.
How much of the road death reduction is due to car design improvement, and how much due to the road improvement? When I started driving in 1960, roads were more twisty, and were not salted in snow/ice conditions. There were few if any crash barriers.While road “furniture” is made safer, air “furniture” in the form of windmills is increasing. We are comparing accidents on prepared, usually deiced if needed, roads, with accidents in open airspace. Off-road driving might be a better comparison.
We are comparing vehicle operations where weather is usually irrevelant, with aircraft operations which are very weather sensitive.
(After studying the available weather information, and phoning my intended destination, I made the wrong decision today, and turned back, over half way on a 106NM flight, believing the weather would have deteriorated before my return. It didn’t. For most of my flight, I was non-radio-contact, in hills, below cloud. No AH. No GPS. Safe if the pilot watches the weather and makes safe decisions. When driving legally, the only decisions I have to make are when to overtake. Bends can be taken at max legal speed.)
To err is human.
Why seek to justify air accidents where the same energy spent positively, accepting the design flaws of both the pilot and machine and then designing them out would save lives.
For exam, I’m very against regulators but regulations of a sensible nature could be helpful. Here is my suggestion:
1) design must not be subject to carb ice
2) whatever Icon seemed to have achieved with their un spin able wing
3) mandatory terrain awareness in certified gps
4) AoA as mandatory instrument
5) DI must read correct heading (always)
6) fuel tanks inside protected structure
7) new autopilots fitted should have envelope protection – should not stall whilst ap flying.
8) engine failure statistics must be published !!
Imagine the last point was mandated. If we first measure this issue, we could start to solve the engines with a high failure rate like in the SR22.
As long as the industry is dominated by people who think Lexus and Ferrari are in the same category, that ain’t gonna happen.
Yes, all cars under the weight of regulation have become variations on a theme, Ferraris and Lexi included, and to me they’re all a bit sterile and unattractive as a place to spend my money. Just boring, and certainly a counter example to my interest in aircraft.
BTW, responding to an earlier comment of Shorricks on lightweight bonded or composite construction in automobiles, Honda was the most prominent forerunner for late model production cars with the bonded aluminum construction NSX of the early 90s. The engineering was done in collaboration with Alcoa. It’s otherwise a pretty good example of something I wouldn’t buy for the reasons stated. Before that another prominent example was the late ‘50s fiberglass monocoque Lotus Elite which is delightful and now worth a lot of money because it’s otherwise not pablum for the masses Link.
Getting back to aircraft specifically, Burt Rutan has done a lot of interesting work in aviation safety: canards, Defiant, Boomerang etc. I’ve always enjoyed his unrestrained distaste for regulation as a source for progress, and I also enjoyed his comment to the Smithsonian magazine (IIRC) about his greatest achievement: “self preservation” was his answer. Which I believe is his way of making a philosophical statement 
Sorry… I’m feeling argumentative
1) design must not be subject to carb ice
My flying school declined to get aircraft without carb heat control, as they considered it would be setting up pilots – most of whom will fly legacy types – to fail.
2) whatever Icon seemed to have achieved with their un spin able wing
Bit boring for aerobatic aircraft, don’t you think? Besides, there’s some suggestion that aircraft that are hard to spin are more likely to have unrecoverable spin modes and boring handling. Personally I fly a reasonably benign 172 infrequently and am delighted to have access to something reasonably forgiving, but if I were to be able to afford to keep more current I’d be delighted to fly something more interesting like a Chipmunk.
3) mandatory terrain awareness in certified gps
That would be nice, but why certified?
4) AoA as mandatory instrument
You mean, like a stall warner? I’m not sure there’s otherwise a good evidence base for AoA indicators in light aircraft.
5) DI must read correct heading (always)
6) fuel tanks inside protected structure
Is there any evidence that fuel tanks inside the fuselage are a safer idea than tip tanks? I would agree that a certain degree of fuel tank integrity is a good thing. Careful as you probably don’t want to inadvertently disallow electrical aircraft.
7) new autopilots fitted should have envelope protection – should not stall whilst ap flying.
8) engine failure statistics must be published !!
And also flight times per type – this would mean you could actually analyse some statistics sensibly which is not currently the case.
1) design must not be subject to carb ice
My flying school declined to get aircraft without carb heat control, as they considered it would be setting up pilots – most of whom will fly legacy types – to fail.
That doesn’t make sense. It just argues for differences training.
Perhaps if 1/10 of the rental/share fleet had a carb heat control, I’d agree, but I suspect it’s closer to 80% plus. And I think the second-nature that carb heat becomes after a few hundred circuits and freda checks would be difficult to replicate.
I can accept arguments against, but I think it’s a reasonable position; not one that should be outlawed. My overall point is that regulation has a bad habit of introducing unintended consequences and restrictions. Even when it’s been well thought out.
Perhaps if 1/10 of the rental/share fleet had a carb heat control, I’d agree, but I suspect it’s closer to 80% plus. And I think the second-nature that carb heat becomes after a few hundred circuits and freda checks would be difficult to replicate.
It’s interesting how a flawed design becomes the accepted standard and then mandates all subsequent designs to include the same flaw. That’s progress! Hoorah!
It’s interesting how a flawed design becomes the accepted standard and then mandates all subsequent designs to include the same flaw. That’s progress! Hoorah!
It’s not a flawed design, it’s just manual, and it is dead simple.
