This Parachute?

[facthunter]

Have you ever been somewhere where the ridiculous behaviour of those there put you in Jeopardy? It's the anti social and Irresponsible among us that makes restrictive rules necessary. On the road I often wish a cop was right there to catch the idiots before they kill themselves and often others.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Have you ever been somewhere where the ridiculous behaviour of those there put you in Jeopardy? It's the anti social and Irresponsible among us that makes restrictive rules necessary. On the road I often wish a cop was right there to catch the idiots before they kill themselves and often others.  Nev

( I wish I had vehicle  to vehicle  missiles)

 

Student pilots will undergo pretty extensive training, covering most/all aspect of piloting an aircraft through Australian skies reliably/safely. Should they pass their final test(s), in a basic trainer without electronic aids,  they will then be subject to recurrent testing (BFR) for the remainder of their flying activates.  The pilot will fly in relatively (to public road) uncongested sky's for as long as he/she remains fit. This regime (which I support ) will not ensure that human pilots will not make errors of judgement/skill but sure goes a long way to minimising such.

 

Student car/motorcycle drivers are subject to a superficial/ cursory training, very little of which addressed the vehicle/their limitations, the multiple & often challenging environment(s) they will be operating in, applied skill, etc - they then undergo a pathetic excuse for a Driving Test (the fact that the failure rate is so low is testament to that), probably with an automatic transmission, reversing camera/sensors/ power steering on a road that they are familiar with, that allows them to drive for possibly the next 60 years or so without further skill/ knowledge assessment. Added to this is the Gov illogical focus on  braking the speed limit (plus a bit of drugs/alcohol) as the cause of accidents and the lack of policing for almost all other driving infringements - is it any wonder the standard of driving is so appalling???

[Carbon Canary]

At least the car and motorcycle learner experience hour requirements are now substantial (no mention of quality of training), more so than a PPL, and there is both an online test and a driving test......which anecdotally may have a higher initial failure rate than expected. 

 

That has dramatically changed since I did my car, HR and motorcycle tests in a country town eons ago.

[skippydiesel]

"Substantial" what does that mean, in this context ? I would prefer comprehensive and even then I would disagree.

 

I see P plate (& fully qualified) drivers almost every time I go out, who seem to be confused by traffic circles, don't indicate ahead of manoeuvring (or at all) hog the right lane for no apparent reason, ignore other drivers indication, do swan-neck turns (fantasising about the double trailers behind their car) tail gate (if motorcyclist sit in the  car/truck drivers blind spot), unable to merge, drive at varying speed (down to 30 kph) below posted speed, only to speed up when going up/down a hill, be unconcerned/unaware of a large number of vehicles behind, unable to pass, being held up by their lack of consideration, etc etc.

 

I used to run a small vehicle pool (50 or so) - it never ceased to amaze me that a large number of drivers did not know how to check the vehicles fluids or tyre pressures,  recognise a flat tyre and be competent to change if for the spare, or even think it might just be important for the safe/successful competition of their journey ( and no it wasn't just the female staff). 

 

 

[Carbon Canary]

Learner drivers require 120 hours of driving experience before they qualify for a test. I think the experience must also include night driving. Sure mum and dad may be atrocious drivers doing the teaching, and the hours logged can be fudged, but still it’s quite a lot of hours.  On paper, you can successfully get a RPC or an RPL with probably two thirds less hands on experience.

 

My very, very vague recollections of getting my car and truck licence was driving around the block with the country cop, no documented prior experience necessary.

I got my motorbike licence on a borrowed bike that had a broken clutch and no indicators. I think the country cop said something like ‘ if you can make it around the block, I know you can ride’!……but that was a long time ago !

 

[skippydiesel]

32 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

Learner drivers require 120 hours of driving experience before they qualify for a test. I think the experience must also include night driving. Sure mum and dad may be atrocious drivers doing the teaching, and the hours logged can be fudged, but still it’s quite a lot of hours.  On paper, you can successfully get a RPC or an RPL with probably two thirds less hands on experience.

 

My very, very vague recollections of getting my car and truck licence was driving around the block with the country cop, no documented prior experience necessary.

I got my motorbike licence on a borrowed bike that had a broken clutch and no indicators. I think the country cop said something like ‘ if you can make it around the block, I know you can ride’!……but that was a long time ago !

 

CC - Its not the length of time you spend (with poor teachers) its the quality of the teaching and the rigour of the testing.

 

Not to many aspiring vehicle driver have to spend hour and hours learning about the theory of internal combustion engines/car suspension/braking performance, weather, communications, planning, how to change a wheel safely, basic maintenance pressures, etc  I am struggling a bit with the analogies but I think you get my point.

It took me (in my 40's) 20+ flying hrs and a year of part time study,  to get PPL - My son on the other hand wanted to learn to fly - so on condition he tried his best at school, he started at flight training at 14 (one flight hour/month). Had his PPL at 16 and his CPL at 18 (aptitude coupled with youth). I dont know what flight hours he had  to do his PPL , then CPL flight tests but it wasn't much when you take into consideration illness, school exams, etc.

I have never seen a car driver go from callow boy, to driver, like he went to professional pilot - that's what flight training can & usually does for an individual. Its something special, a qualification to be proud of and a standard to be maintained.- very very different from your average car driver.

 

 

[Carbon Canary]

Skip, no argument from me at all about quality of instruction. My comment was that over the past 50 odd years, hours experience behind the wheel before being awarded a drivers licence has changed from negligible to significant.  I think today you can get ‘bonus’ experience hours if you use a professional driving instructor, up to a limit, but the 120 hours total remains.

By the way, mum and dad delivering 120 hours driving instruction can take a year or more. There is only so many trips to the shops you can do each week, and that is usually only about 20mins anyhow, unless you live in the bush. Spread over a year, this provides opportunities for night driving, driving on wet roads, etc. At least, even if the instruction was crap, the learner is getting road experience, good or bad.

 

And of course, each State is different.

[skippydiesel]

Agreed to a point CC.

 

It would seem to me that we are pretty much of like mind on this topic.

 

Does this now end the debate on the State interference with personal rights of adults (to have a parachute or not) ?

[Carbon Canary]

Skip,

i chose not to participate in that part of the debate other than posing the original question on BRS. With 20:20 hindsight, I should have re-phrased the question.

 

Should RAAus as an association (not an individual) actively promote enhanced safety features for aircraft, but not mandate them ?

 

Maybe that is an easier question to answer.

 

 

[facthunter]

Where there are 2 sides to the question produce the FACTS about both if you go there at all. That's what I would do if I considered fitting one. I'm totally opposed to mandating it. No airliner is fitted with one and never will be..  Nev

[kgwilson]

Can you imagine the size of parachute to safely bring down an A380 with a MTOW of 560 tons. It would be so big there would be no room for passengers.😁

[facthunter]

Operating it a cruise speed would be interesting also . Not going to happen.  Nev

[Carbon Canary]

Well, I was actually thinking more broadly.

 

4 point harnesses

ADS-B

maybe even seatbelt airbags aka Cirrus

BRS

 

None of which would be mandated, and to pick up on Nev’s point, a fact sheet providing advice both positive and negative, or at least guidance on where further info may be found to assist aircraft owners considering this stuff.

 

I have never considered airliners and RA-Aus together - that’s an interesting concept !!

[onetrack]

Adding safety features has to be a big bonus in any item of equipment - but the safety feature has to be seen to work to become successful. No safety feature is ever going to be perfect.

I can still recall when we laughed and sneered at airbags first being touted in cars (in the late 1970's). We reckoned they'd kill more people than they saved. How things have changed!

I recently sold an elderly neighbours car for him (a '96 Mazda Protege) and one buyer refused to purchase it, because it had no airbags! This, despite the car being a low-km car in superb condition.

 

I still don't get the attitude towards the refusal to wear seatbelts in cars. It must be a "the Govt isn't going to tell me what to do!" mentality behind it.

The local Police recently announced a safety drive to educate rural motorists in particular to wear seatbelts, as it has been found that in more than 20% of rural crashes, it was discovered the victims weren't wearing a seatbelt.

I lost a particularly good young employee, aged only 20, when he either forgot or refused to wear his seatbelt - despite my business' safety directives outlining seatbelts were to be worn when driving the company vehicles. 

 

I understand BRS's have an excellent safety record in saving lives, and I fail to see the continued opposition to them. I understand the weight penalty and the high cost is a deterrent to owners of ultralights, but I believe RA-Aus would be well advised to simply recommend the fitting of BRS's, but stop short of mandating them, due to the complexities involved in the fitting to the wide range of aircraft currently being flown.

 

Good seatbelt systems are simply a very effective way of saving lives, even in light aircraft crashes.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by onetrack

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Carbon Canary said:

Skip,

i chose not to participate in that part of the debate other than posing the original question on BRS. With 20:20 hindsight, I should have re-phrased the question.

 

Should RAAus as an association (not an individual) actively promote enhanced safety features for aircraft, but not mandate them ?

 

Maybe that is an easier question to answer.

 

 

I support promotion/education, to enhance safety.

I don't have a problem with manufacture installing safety equipment systems (even if it dumbs down the operator).

I support any individual making a rational choice to reduce their personal risk.

I do have a problem with populist hysteria / propaganda taking over and decisions being made by vote centric politicians , jumping on the band wagon,  (ignoring empirical evidence) and legislating for something which should be a personal choice for adults.

[facthunter]

The cruise speed is around 480Knots. So much energy but my point is one of acceptance that some events can't be made completely safe. Risk in a smaller aircraft has much to do with HOW "you" operate, unlike on the road where someone can easily do things that affect you, and you have no control of.  Nev.

[skippydiesel]

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Adding safety features has to be a big bonus in any item of equipment - but the safety feature has to be seen to work to become successful. No safety feature is ever going to be perfect.

I can still recall when we laughed and sneered at airbags first being touted in cars (in the late 1970's). We reckoned they'd kill more people than they saved. How things have changed!

I recently sold an elderly neighbours car for him (a '96 Mazda Protege) and one buyer refused to purchase it, because it had no airbags! This, despite the car being a low-km car in superb condition.

 

I still don't get the attitude towards the refusal to wear seatbelts in cars. It must be a "the Govt isn't going to tell me what to do!" mentality behind it.

The local Police recently announced a safety drive to educate rural motorists in particular to wear seatbelts, as it has been found that more than 20% of rural crashes, it was discovered the victims weren't wearing a seatbelt.

I lost a particularly good young employee, aged only 20, when he either forgot or refused to wear his seatbelt - despite my business' safety directives outlining seatbelts were to be worn when driving the company vehicles. 

 

I understand BRS's have an excellent safety record in saving lives, and I fail to see the continued opposition to them. I understand the weight penalty and the high cost is a deterrent to owners of ultralights, but I believe RA-Aus would be well advised to simply recommend the fitting of BRS's, but stop short of mandating them, due to the complexities involved in the fitting to the wide range of aircraft currently being flown.

Nature has a way of dealing with individuals who take unnecessary risks - The cost, to family/society and the econamy, is unfortunately one that must be  paid by a free society, if it is to remain free.

 

"........the continued opposition to the them." I have yet to hear or see any opposition - many question their effectiveness/ the cost in dollars & pay load but they are not apposing the voluntary use of such devices.

 

How do you come to "understand BRS's have an excellent safety record in saving lives," - could it be that the BRS manufacturers are telling you this? -  where is the empirical evidence?

 

 

[facthunter]

How would one justify opposing someone's choice to fit one? (or NOT fit one). Especially IF you are the only POB.?   A recommended technique for the Tiger Moth if you lost a motor over tiger country and were also above cloud (A silly place to be ) was to put it in a spin which combined the slowest forward speed with an acceptable Rate of Descent.  (Usually Non Lethal.).  Nev

Edited May 27, 2023 by facthunter
more content.

[onetrack]

Quote

How do you come to "understand BRS's have an excellent safety record in saving lives," - could it be that the BRS manufacturers are telling you this? -  where is the empirical evidence?

 

Well, Dan Johnson writes up a persuasive argument for BRS's - and the simple basic fact that many (and often innocent lives) have been saved, can't be ignored as "sales-speak", and provides the "empirical evidence" you speak of.

 

https://bydanjohnson.com/brs-logs-save-number-400-using-airframe-parachutes-definitely-saves-lives/

 

And even the writers who take an aggressive attitude against the fitment of BRS's, end up agreeing they have saved lives, and will continue to do so.

 

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/is-brs-always-a-life-saver-not-exactly/

[facthunter]

There's a few situations when they don't help and others where they can't. There's also the risk to rescuers and they may not be good on water where there's significant wind. You are also carrying that extra weight all the time you fly.  Nev

[kgwilson]

Well those articles are pretty old 2009 & 2019 & the 400 lives saved is just a figure without any evidence. It is more likely that these were the 400th & 401st BRS deployments and the occupants didn't die but how many of those 400 could have made forced landings and lived? The Cirrus engine failure over water is a good example. The majority of water ditchings result in survival.

[Carbon Canary]

BRS is another option to have when you have run out of options.

Similarly,  a 4 point harness and/or an airbag in the seatbelt  would also be good options to have when you have run out of options.

Maybe I should even throw in UPRT as an option to have when you have run out of options.

 

Of course we all know of the Takata faulty airbag thing killing quite a few people, but we are not now ripping airbags out of all cars because they are dangerous.

I still see passengers in cars with their feet up on the dash basically resting on the airbag, so there is an ongoing education element required as well

[facthunter]

Quite a few recalls concerning airbags.. New cars certainly have all the features and go and stop well. Nev

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

How would one justify opposing someone's choice to fit one? (or NOT fit one). Especially IF you are the only POB.?   A recommended technique for the Tiger Moth if you lost a motor over tiger country and were also above cloud (A silly place to be ) was to put it in a spin which combined the slowest forward speed with an acceptable Rate of Descent.  (Usually Non Lethal.).  Nev

I would definitely not appose, as long as its an airworthy installation. Sure I may ask for the rational  but only if the relationship allowed for this.

[facthunter]

What is rational is subjective.  It's not an absolute to me.  (this one). Having a dual pitch control capability is more important.   As an example. Nev