I think a steel cage made of tubes, like the Mooney has it, has very similar characteristics as a carbon fibre structure. Both will not absorb a lot of energy, but still protect the occupants in case the cabin turns over etc. But whatever, neither a Cirrus cabin or a Mooney can be compared with the energy absorbing structures normal for today’s cars. If you hit any obstacle really hard with any SEP the engine will kill the occupants, which is very different from what cars can do.
I remember very well two head on collisions my father had in Mercedes cars in the 1970’s. Both with + 100 kph on federal roads. Both of these Mercedes cars were completely destroyed in the front, but I remember how ny father showed me the wreck of one of then – the front doors would open and close just like before the acident and the engine would not enter the cabin. Ground collisions with SEP’s have resulted in the pilot/occupants beeing killder by the engine many times.
Jacko wrote:
so the key to CFIT survival is minimum controllable airspeed
An aircraft is flimsy (weight versus robustness) and will not withstand the slightest impact with a non-even surface (excluding STOL with tundra tires). Many are killed just flipping the plane snagging a wheel in a rut, on a rock, on a fence, in a ditch, or virtually anything unforseen on the ground that cannot be seen from the air. Even highway landings are treacherous not just because a car may have to be dodged, or a car dodging you…but because many roads are not airplane friendly and have light poles, fencing, and other obstacles ready to tear a wing off or snag the gear.
But each to his own. Just don’t assume the problem is settled by a formula or a theoretical analysis of a set of statistics.
This is a really strange definition of CFIT. The typical controlled flight into terrain is at cruise speed, and the terrain encounter is a bit of a surprise to the crew. Which does not even have the time to be surprised.
A forced crash landing is not normally called CFIT.
Agreed. An engine failure leading to an engine-off landing is not CFIT. Nor is a loss of control. It is controlled flight into terrain ie usually something like not knowing you are about to hit a mountain and flying into it. Or descending on an approach and landing short.
Peter wrote:
I don’t think “retractable” is complex
It’s more complex than non retractable, and it was also a cause of some of the accidents in the DA42. The statistics would be even more favorable vs the DA42 if it had non retractable gear.
The interesting thing is not the number of accidents or the accident rate, but the somewhat strange fact that IF you are to be in an accident (no matter what cause), you are more likely to die in a Cirrus than in a Diamond. It’s about 50% more probability. This is very counter intuitive when thinking about the fact that the Cirrus has a chute, a chute that in principle (and theory) would save even the most hopeless of pilots from the most stupid of causes. I mean, the whole concept of the chute is to save you IF an accident/incident occurs, but that very concept is obviously not as “obvious” as it looks.
Of course this is related to how a pilot assess risk, it may very well be the very cause for this counter intuitive fact mentioned above. He assesses the risk of a fatal accident with a chute as zero, as a fool proof Plan B for most all of problems. This is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. The way I would look at this, is that a chute can possibly be of any (perceived or real, I’m not sure) help ONLY IF the aircraft is flown within the “mission profile” of any other SEP you would fly. The moment you start flying the Cirrus a tad outside the “SEP mission profile” that you would keep inside in any other non chute SEP, that is when the benefits of the chute (perceived or real) cannot even start to outweigh the added and real risks of the “extended” mission profile. It can be argued that the very existence of the chute effectively prevents the pilot from doing any sort of meaningful risk assessment, whether analytically or more by gut feeling, or even subconsciously. That risk assessment is much more important and effective in real life than a chute alone can ever be. Maybe.
Commercial aviation has shown what will keep the accident rates down, and it’s:
In GA, at least recreational GA, none of that is possible or even relevant. Still, the basic principles must be valid also for GA. The more trained and the more current the pilot is, the better and so on. A chute is not part of it.
Add to that list
so even complete muppets can fly them safely. How long would the AF447 muppets have lasted in IFR piston GA? About 5 minutes, IMHO.
LeSving wrote:
The moment you start flying the Cirrus a tad outside the “SEP mission profile” that you would keep inside in any other non chute SEP, that is when the benefits of the chute (perceived or real) cannot even start to outweigh the added and real risks of the “extended” mission profile.
I quite agree with this thought. Consider the differing safety records of light helicopters to light fixed wing – they would probably be very much closer to each other, if helicopters were not routinely being flown into confined areas, and doing other tasks which would never be considered in a fixed wing.
Do drivers take more risks when they believe that the car is “safer” because it is equipped with seat belts/air bags/anti lock brakes?
Cobalt wrote:
The typical controlled flight into terrain is at cruise speed, and the terrain encounter is a bit of a surprise to the crew. Which does not even have the time to be surprised
I completely agree, but the point I was trying to make is that collision with terrain in IMC below MSA need not be a surprise and that if things have gone that pear-shaped the best preparation for impact is to slow down.
Incidentally, comparison with cars is open to criticism in that cars often suffer head-on collision. Aircraft in controlled flight are more likely to collide with terrain at an angle.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Do drivers take more risks when they believe that the car is “safer” because it is equipped with seat belts/air bags/anti lock brakes?
Yes, probably. Arguably seatbelts didn’t improve safety as much as you would have predicted, as drivers compensated by driving faster making life more dangerous for pedestrians to boot. Neither are big 4×4 cars as safe as you might predict.
What you want is for activities to improve safety without making you feel safe. Maybe we should install hidden airbags but give up seatbelts.
Yes, probably. Arguably seatbelts didn’t improve safety as much as you would have predicted, as drivers compensated by driving faster making life more dangerous for pedestrians to boot.
There is no statistic to support that opinion. And fatalities in road traffic go down every year, although the average gets faster and stronger all the time.
