User Profile Header
PilotEricB
,
WI
Comments
Displaying 1-5 of 9
After 10 Years, Cirrus Chute Controversy Persists
from PilotEricB
wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago
Chofujohn,
If you would bother to pay attention to other people's posts, rather than engage in silly personal attacks and ranting, your contribution to the discussion would be much more meaningful.
1) Never once did I say I am AGAINST parachutes on board an aircraft. I simply want people to realize that, like any piece of technology it has some drawbacks as well as benefits. You would have recognized that if you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of showing up hell bent on starting an argument.
2) The 4X4 argument is PRECISELY to the point. Just because you want to call it "complete and utter nonsense" doesn't make it so. Rather than being intellectually honest about it, you decide to mock other people's arguments rather than actually discuss them intelligently. You are either incapable of, or apparently unwilling to approach this discussion with an open mind. If you would bother to consult any of the literature on "risk homeostasis" you may see it differently.
3) The argument that somehow an air carrier aircraft such as a B747 or A340 could be equipped with BRS reflects a serious lack of understanding of the technical limitations involved. Furthermore, even a cursory examination of recent hull losses of commercial aircraft reveals that there are few if any circumstances where a BRS could have even been of benefit. This is wishful thinking.
4) You want to paint me as a naysayer. Anyone like Chofujohn who wants to paint the BRS as some magical lifesaving system without any drawbacks is not only being intellectually dishonest but is also promoting a dangerous and foolish attitude.
After 10 Years, Cirrus Chute Controversy Persists
from PilotEricB
wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago
I thoroughly disagree with your contention that the presence of the chute doesn't breed a false sense of security. The phenomenon of "risk homeostasis" is well documented in the literature (see the April 2009 issue of NAFI Mentor for a more thorough treatment of this topic.) Rather than providing increased levels of security, the presence of multiple layers of advanced technology (such as large-screen MFD's, weeping wing TKS systems, and the CAPS parachute) prompt users to accept higher levels of flight risk than they would have ordinarily have avoided. In other words, the risk margin doesn't increase with this technology, the user simply increases his level of acceptable risk because of the technology. The risk margin remains thin as the user seeks a new level of "homeostasis."
A good example of this is winter drivers with 4 wheel drive. Ordinarily, in slippery conditions most drivers of non-4WD vehicles would be motivated to slow down. Instead, many 4WD drivers simply engage the traction control and drive at normal speeds, based on the perception that they are "protected" from reduced traction. Unfortunately this incorrect perception results in many avoidable car accidents.
The bottom line is that the presence of advanced technology results in a user's inability to correctly perceive the risks involved. This results in overconfidence and an inability to properly manage risk. The presence of advanced technology has not "stopped" accidents, nor will it, until human error is better explained and accepted by GA pilots of advanced aircraft.
After 10 Years, Cirrus Chute Controversy Persists
from PilotEricB
wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago
KenPerkin's comments deserve an answer. First, he states: "Virtually all ( OK, almost) all pilots I know are intelligent, careful and skillful pilots who do not and/or would not take unreasonable risks in their flying, because of added levels of emergency security equipment." To this I would say firstly that the statistics do not support your argument. Secondly, research has shown that pilots of all stripes are prone to overconfidence and bias concerning their own tolerance for risk. ALL pilots think they are safe, conservative pilots. In years of delivering aviation seminars I have yet to have a pilot publicly admit otherwise. Yet somehow dozens of these same "intelligent, careful, and skillful" pilots die every year taking risks they might not have ordinarily taken. The presence of advanced technologies in the cockpit (whether it be TKS, a parachute, weather datalink, etc.) certainly plays a role in these situations.
Secondly, Ken argues: "The 4X example is bogus. Knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent drivers of 4X vehicles know that just because engaging the all wheel drive will give you better traction to accelerate, it will not help one bit in slowing or turning on icy roads." The example is not bogus - it is entirely to the point. I think you completely missed the point of my argument. It is not "knowledgable, experienced, and intelligent" drivers of 4WD vehicles who have these accidents. It's people who are lulled into a sort of complacency or false sense of invulnerability by the technology who end up spinning out and crashing. Like it or not, the "doctor killer" reputation is being resurrected. So much time is being spent during training on managing the fancy automation that even fundamental skills like basic aircraft control are being neglected. Nor can there be much _serious_ emphasis on risk management or the proper attitude towards technology - this runs completely counter to the sales pitch for these aircraft as the "anytime, anywhere" flying contraption for the busy and well-to-do professional.
Lastly, Ken states: "The most important piece of gear you need to keep engaged is the brain - in all circumstances. Intelligent reliance on added levels of security gear is part of the exercise." I completely agree; however, any reasonable observer should readily see that we are not yet at the stage where "intelligent reliance" on technology is being properly taught or widely adopted.
'Over and Out' Doesn't Make Sense
from PilotEricB
wrote 2 years 36 weeks ago
Mark,
As long as you are on the subject of incorrect radio phraseology, you would do well to fight against the ongoing use of "any traffic in the area, please advise." Despite being explicitly mentioned in the AIM as an unacceptable practice, it continues to live on in the transmissions of lazy pilots who expect everyone in the area to be using a radio.
Why the Coming Pilot Shortage Isn't Creating Lots of New Pilots . . . Yet
from PilotEricB
wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago
Robert,
Industry forecasts - whether from the FAA or airframe manufacturers - are notoriously inaccurate. Perhaps you recall the FAA's forecasts for thousands of VLJ's dotting the skies...
Boeing is in the business of selling airplanes. It would hardly be in their interest to admit the truth that thousands of highly experienced pilots are out of work and pounding the pavement - or have fled to other lines of work - simply because of the shortage of good-paying, stable careers for pilots with more than a couple thousand hours of flight time. The commenter who remarked on receiving 1,000 resumes for a King Air position is not lying. The story is the same all around the United States.
You might retort that the forecast calls for new pilot jobs "worldwide." That may be so - but let me assure you that many, if not most of those jobs will be created in markets outside the United States - and are consequently closed off to US citizens. A few foreign airlines are willing to hire ex-pat US airline pilots, but this is the exception rather than the rule. More to the point, what US pilot in their right mind would be willing to pull up stakes - move to, say, India - and work for a startup airline? The safety records I've seen so far have been abysmal.
The proof is in the pudding, Robert. So long as regional airlines still have thousands of doe-eyed youngsters clamoring to fill pilot positions - in spite of the poverty wages - where's the shortage?
- 1 of 2
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
