Hit and Run in aviation?!!!
G A Venkatesh
report is very sketchy. Maybe the locals have more details:
Four planes took off from Quincy Municipal, IL and were flying in formation in
brisk winds when one of the planes ran into two others. One plane crashed with
4 fatalities. A second plane with "part of a wing" missing flew to an airport
near St.Louis (about 100 miles) without informing anyone or turning back. The
other plane with "superficial damage" flew on to Mexico, MO (about 60 miles
away). One of the pilots is supposed to have told the investigators later that
he couldn't turn back because of "steering problems" after the collision!
I have no more info on the crash so I won't draw any conclusions about the
pilots but I just can't help noticing the resemblences to the typical weekend
driving accidents. Maybe they should revise the hit-and-run rule for
aviation, especially when the planes are capable of running after the event.
Looks like the July 4th weekend was bad for aviation too with three more
fatal crashes - one in Roche Harbor, WA, one in PA and one near Pacoima
Airport in LA.
Sigh! Just when I was trying my best to convince people that they would be
better off flying on July 4th weekend than driving.
venky
Les Niles
> Four planes took off from Quincy Municipal, IL and were flying
> in formation in brisk winds when one of the planes ran into two
> others. One plane crashed with 4 fatalities. A second plane with
> "part of a wing" missing flew to an airport near St.Louis (about
> 100 miles) without informing anyone or turning back. The other
> plane with "superficial damage" flew on to Mexico, MO (about 60
> miles away). One of the pilots is supposed to have told the
> investigators later that he couldn't turn back because of
> "steering problems" after the collision!
> revise the hit-and-run rule for aviation, especially when the
> planes are capable of running after the event.
I think you're jumping the gun a bit to call this a "hit and run"
and call for more regulations. Your posting sounds a bit like a
typical sensationalized news story about an aviation incident.
I just finished reading a collection of "I Learned About Flying From
That" columns from Flying magazine. One was about someone who had a
mid-air, lost the outer 3 feet or so of the left wing, and managed
to land safely. He certainly had "steering problems": Full right
aileron was need just to keep from rolling left, and full power to
keep the speed up around 110. Anything lower was nearing a stall,
which would have been uncoordinated and an instant spin entry. He
could only make very shallow turns to the right. The other airplane
also landed safely, an hour or so away -- the pilot flew a while to
burn off fuel.
So these two pilots from Quincy may have been acting quite
reasonably, and probably had to do some pretty skillful flying to
get down alive. Sounds like they ought to be congratulated (unless
there's a *lot* more evidence that they were trying to get away).
-les
Bob Watson
>
>Looks like the July 4th weekend was bad for aviation too with three more
>fatal crashes - one in Roche Harbor, WA, one in PA and one near Pacoima
>Airport in LA.
>
>Sigh! Just when I was trying my best to convince people that they would be
>better off flying on July 4th weekend than driving.
>
>venky
it amazes me that a fellow aviation enthusiast would fall victim to the
"look at all the little airplanes fall out of the sky" syndrome that the
newspapers seem to present. If you would compare the number of airplane
incidents reported _across_the_country_ with other modes of transportation
you would find that air travel is one of the safer modes. If you use the
"column-inches" of press method, then aviation is much less (though of course
this method is far from accurate, though unfortunately the most common among
lay people). My response is that the reason you see aircraft accidents in the
news is because they are so rare compared to other modes of transportation.
(imagine the size of the daily newspaper if auto incidents got the same press
coverage as comparable aircraft incidents!)
Unfortunately, air travel is not 100% safe, but then what is? I still hold that
the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport.
-- Bob Watson
G A Venkatesh
>In article <1991Jul8.1...@bellcore.bellcore.com> ve...@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>>
>>Looks like the July 4th weekend was bad for aviation too with three more
>>
>>better off flying on July 4th weekend than driving.
>
>"look at all the little airplanes fall out of the sky" syndrome that the
Oh Boy, I have never felt so misunderstood in my life and by so many as
that posting has been. My fault entirely. Should have used several smileys
and sarcasm warnings. Never mind, I can take it!
If I could fall victim to such a syndrome, dear sir, I would have quit flying
long time ago. Your reply, I agree with completely but then I belong to the
converted. Try using that logic on the non-believers. I was actually
trying to convince someone that weekend and she calls me up on Monday and
throws this report on my face!
I have had two people cancel out on me after the Heinz crash and the other
one that happened around the same time. And they weren't even small planes!
Yes, there will be aircraft falling out of the sky (never mind the reason)
and newspapers will sensationalize it. We can educate people with
statistics but there is one thing that even we can learn from those
statistics. Do anything you can to cut down on those large number of
avoidable accidents. Who knows? You might even do yourself a favor!
venky
Thaddeus Beier
The only reasonable comparison I can think of is comparing them on the
basis of miles covered. So, for a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
35,000 traffic deaths/year (about)
250,000,000 people drive an average of 10,000 miles/year (wild guess)
==> 71,000,000 miles/fatality/year, that's 1 chance in 7100 you will
die in a car in a year.
1000 GA deaths/year (I think, could be totally wrong)
300,000 pilots flying (?)
They fly 100 hours/year (probably about right, on average. Some alot
more, some a lot less)
120 knots average speed
==> 3,600,000 miles/fatality/year
So, GA flying, per mile is 20 times as dangerous, per mile, as driving.
Now, these are completely wild guesses, but I think they are within
the correct order of magnitude. Anyone want to correct me?
--
Thad Beier What is good, and what is not good, need we ask anybody
to tell us these things?
Wally Kramer
ve...@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
> Looks like the July 4th weekend was bad for aviation too with three more
> fatal crashes - one in Roche Harbor, WA, one in PA and one near Pacoima
> Airport in LA.
Does anyone have details of the Roche Harbor incident? I was there Friday
the 5th (riding my bicycle on the runway trying to figure out where the
taxi lane is). All was normal then.
-----
Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239
wal...@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658
Gregory TRAVIS
>35,000 traffic deaths/year (about)
Closer to 60,000
>1000 GA deaths/year (I think, could be totally wrong)
The figure two years ago was, I believe, about 550.
>300,000 pilots flying (?)
Around 200,000 "active" pilots.
But, we've been over this point ad nauseum in the past. I think the
consensus was "I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that flying is
(much safer than/safer than/as safe/not quite as safe/pretty dangerous)
compared to driving a car." Depending on who you want to impress.
--
Gregory Reed Travis C I C A
Center for Innovative Computing Applications|gr...@cica.indiana.edu (work)
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 |frognix!gr...@cica.indiana.edu (hm)
William LeFebvre
In article <greg.679174403@travis>, gr...@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes:
|> th...@lever.asd.sgi.com (Thaddeus Beier) writes:
...
|> >35,000 traffic deaths/year (about)
|> Closer to 60,000
|> >1000 GA deaths/year (I think, could be totally wrong)
|> The figure two years ago was, I believe, about 550.
|> >300,000 pilots flying (?)
|> Around 200,000 "active" pilots.
|>
|> (much safer than/safer than/as safe/not quite as safe/pretty dangerous)
|> compared to driving a car." Depending on who you want to impress.
Just another point that proves you can get statistics to say whatever
you want....
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."
William LeFebvre
PP-ASEL
s...@ollie.seas.ucla.edu
>basis of miles covered. So, for a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
>
>35,000 traffic deaths/year (about)
>250,000,000 people drive an average of 10,000 miles/year (wild guess)
>==> 71,000,000 miles/fatality/year, that's 1 chance in 7100 you will
>die in a car in a year.
Thats probably more like 150e6 people @ 10,000 miles/year. And the total
fatalities still are ~50K/year. So I make it: 1 death every 30,000,000
person/miles or 1 chance in 3000.
>1000 GA deaths/year (I think, could be totally wrong)
>300,000 pilots flying (?)
>They fly 100 hours/year (probably about right, on average. Some alot
>more, some a lot less)
>120 knots average speed
>==> 3,600,000 miles/fatality/year
>So, GA flying, per mile is 20 times as dangerous, per mile, as driving.
>
Last report said that there were 500,000 'active' pilots (people with
medical certificates). So thats 500000*100*120/1000 = 6,000,000 PM/death
(lost of bogus assumptions here, average of 1 person/plane etc etc.)
this works out to 1 chance in 500 that you'll die in a year. Or about
6 time more hazardious.
My recolection of the last time that this was rehashed (about 3 years ago) was
that raw GA flying was about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, with a helmet.
And discarding the 'real dangerious stuff [VFR -> IMC, FWI, Buzz jobs, Low level
beatups etc]' Greatly improved your life expectancy (to ~ driving).
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw Internet:s...@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Brent Chapman
>My partner in our Citabria was there at the airport sleeping under the
>wing when the accident occurred.
I've heard of people going into the poorhouse to feed a flying habit, but
_really_, isn't that just a little extreme? :-)
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman Telebit Corporation
Sun Network Specialist 1315 Chesapeake Terrace
br...@telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: 408/745-3264
Steven L Harris
>the 5th (riding my bicycle on the runway trying to figure out where the
>taxi lane is). All was normal then.
My partner in our Citabria was there at the airport sleeping under the
wing when the accident occurred. His report, from my best recollection
is as follows:
About 11:30 at night, he heard the bonanza start up, a runup, and then
the start of a takeoff roll. Ken said he was about 3000 feet down the
strip from (but uphill) where the takeoff roll was started. Rwy 6 slopes
uphill according to my Western States flight guide. The bonanza had
about 40 feet of altitude and was over the rwy centerline when it
passed Ken. The crash site was reportedly 300 yards or so off the
rwy centerline, not far from the end of the rwy. There were few
(perhaps no) visual references available past the 7 rwy lights. The
plane hit a tree, tore a wing off then hit the eave of a house and
crashed into the driveway landing on a pickup. It was immediately
engulfed in flames (Ken said over 100' high flames). Ken did not see
that it had hit the house, he could only see the flames from the
wreckage in the distance and attempted to call Whidbey approach on the
radio. Unable to raise anybody on the radio from the ground, he started
towards the wreckage, by the time he got there the fire trucks had
arrived. After the fire was extinguished, few parts were even recognizable
as belonging to an airplane. The entire wreckage minus the wing torn
off on the tree on the initial impact would have easily fit into the
back of the Toyota pickup it landed on. The only parts Ken recognized
were the "blob of metal that must have been the engine, and the
throwover control yoke". At that point it was not obvious how many
occupants were in the airplane. Ken believed that there had only been
the pilot until he later heard on the news that three people had died
in the crash.
Ken believes that the pilot lost visual orientation after takeoff, failed
to transition to instruments, and veered to the side of the rwy centerline
striking the trees.
Steve Harris
ste...@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Citabria N11067 for now
RV-4 NXXXXX someday
G. David Frye
asked about the Quincy, IL incident of last weekend. I've read several
newspaper accounts of it, and I suspect that it will eventually be chalked
up to gross stupidity plus negligence after the fact.
Five planes had flown into Quincy for the holiday, all of them buddies from
the St. Louis area. On Sunday, they departed, four of them IN FORMATION
from the uncontrolled field. Two collided on climbout, and one crashed into
a field less than 1/2 mile from the airport. Four people were aboard and
all were killed. That's the gross stupidity part.
Now for the negligence. The remaining four aircraft chose to continue the
flight back to St. Louis. No one stayed behind to explain what had happened.
No one contacted authorities about the accident. The pilot of the second
plane went to a hospital in the STL area and "was treated for minor injuries."
It took five hours before the Quincy, IL sheriff pieced together the story
and managed to contact the other pilots. They have been questioned by the
accident investigators and their story has not been released to the public.
It must be a doozy -- I can't imagine what these people must have been
thinking. Correction: it's pretty obvious they weren't thinking at all.
There have been a number of comments in this thread about not jumping on the
"aviation is dangerous" bandwagon. I agree, but pilots like these give
aviation a very bad name.
G. David Frye
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: fr...@cerl.uiuc.edu PLATO: frye / s / cerl PHONE: (217) 333-7439
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
>
> The entire wreckage minus the wing torn
>off on the tree on the initial impact would have easily fit into the
>back of the Toyota pickup it landed on. The only parts Ken recognized
>were the "blob of metal that must have been the engine, and the
>throwover control yoke".
This description matches verbatim my own astonishment at how little was
left of the A36 which crashed and burned at Gaithersburg trying to go around
after a gear-up landing. I could not believe it was a Bonanza, for the
blackened wreckage was no more than 14 inches high; I thought sure it must
have been an ultralight. In spite of firefighters being on the scene in
less than a minute (they happened to be on the field, and only needed to
suit up), two folks got incinerated in that plane. Bonanzas are great
flyers, but I wouldn't put much stake in the notion of walking away from
a crash in one.
Dan Masys
ma...@mcs.nlm.nih.gov
Bernie Rosen ACF
>>the 5th (riding my bicycle on the runway trying to figure out where the
>>taxi lane is). All was normal then.
>
>My partner in our Citabria was there at the airport sleeping under the
>wing when the accident occurred. His report, from my best recollection
>is as follows:
>
>About 11:30 at night, he heard the bonanza start up, a runup, and then
>the start of a takeoff roll. Ken said he was about 3000 feet down the
>strip from (but uphill) where the takeoff roll was started. Rwy 6 slopes
>uphill according to my Western States flight guide.
My recollection from flying up to Roche Harbor last summer is that rwy
24 slopes downhill and departing that direction takes you over the
water/harbor, and there are usually some lights there. I just wonder
why the pilot attempted a takeoff uphill, over dark trees, at night?
Were the winds fairly stong from the NE?
Bernie
N4826Q
Bob Watson
In article <1991Jul12.0...@riacs.edu> bro...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bernie Rosen ACF) writes:
>
>My recollection from flying up to Roche Harbor last summer is that rwy
>24 slopes downhill and departing that direction takes you over the
>water/harbor, and there are usually some lights there. I just wonder
>why the pilot attempted a takeoff uphill, over dark trees, at night?
>Were the winds fairly stong from the NE?
>
>Bernie
is up hill (slightly) and Rwy 6 (away from the harbor) is (obviously) down-
hill. The preferred approach is to land on 24 and take off on 6 (wind
permitting) to avoid overflight of the resort and harbor. The airport is
VERY DARK at night (even with the 8-10 runway lights) and even darker with-
out. (makes it great for star gazing!) The runway is 4300' according to the
chart and about 30' wide (it used to be a road from the looks of it). There's
about a 500' clearing between the threshold of 24 and the 80' trees.
I was surprised at how dark it got after take off since until you climb to
about 200' there are no lit references to see (this night was
slightly overcast, so
there was no benefit of moonlight or starlight) and can easily under-
stand how vertigo could set in real quick if you don't go straight to the
guages on takeoff. It's as close to an instrument takeoff as I've seen!
-- Bob Watson
Bob Watson
numbers I could dig up on transportation safety were from 1986 (small
library) but here they are (briefly).
1986 GA Accidents 2,568
GA Fatalities 958
Air Carrier Acc. 36
Air Carrier Fatalities 7
1986 Motor Vehicle Accidents 33.3 Million
Motor Vehilce Deaths 93,900 (about 50% die within 1 month, the
remainder within 12 months, the
1 month number is what is usually
quoted)
1986 Pass/Miles Traveled:
Motor Vehicles 1,472 billion
Air Travel (GA/Comm) 320 billion
After some crunching the fatalities/pass mile are:
GA = 196 /Billion Pass Mile
Airline = 1/Billion Pass Mile
Commuter = 10/Billion Pass Mile
Auto = 25/Billion Pass Mile (using the 1 month number)
63/Billion Pass Mile (using the 12 month number)
(from 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the Dept.
of Commerce)
So, statistically, I stand corrected. However, I also stand by my previous
posting on the use and learning value of these statistics such that MY
statistics will stay at 100% safe.
-- Bob Watson
Dennis Hurvitz
> less than a minute (they happened to be on the field, and only needed to
> suit up), two folks got incinerated in that plane. Bonanzas are great
> flyers, but I wouldn't put much stake in the notion of walking away from
> a crash in one.
>
> Dan Masys
> ma...@mcs.nlm.nih.gov
dan,
we must face the reality that volvo doesn't make a general aviation
airplane. airplane manufacturers don't have that tv commercial where
the airplane is pushed off a 4 story parking structure and the occupant
spaces remain uncompromised.
it is the nature of the beast. airplanes must have high strength to
weight ratios, but also very light weight.
we carry many gallons of highly volatile avgas.
granted there was little left of the wreckage, but i believe that if the
low wing craft were a mooney, or a piper, or a beech, or a viking, or a
rockwell, and a fuel tank is punctured and ignited, the airframe
composition becomes moot. lights out.
dennis hurvitz
G A Venkatesh
In article <4...@oscar.UUCP>, hur...@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
|>
|> we must face the reality that volvo doesn't make a general aviation
|> airplane. airplane manufacturers don't have that tv commercial where
|> the airplane is pushed off a 4 story parking structure and the occupant
|> spaces remain uncompromised.
|>
|> it is the nature of the beast. airplanes must have high strength to
|> weight ratios, but also very light weight.
|>
|> we carry many gallons of highly volatile avgas.
My feeling is that if GA had evolved the same way as automobiles, we would have
seen a lot of innovations for safety that would have made many of the crashes
survivable. Unfortunately, the designs we have today come from a period
where the automobiles weren't that safe either. Some of the kitplane
manufacturers have invested a lot of time into *some* of the safety issues,
(design and routing of fuel lines and oil lines, firewall design, etc.) but
there just isn't enough competition and demand to make it worth their while.
Regulations aren't sufficent motivators for safety.
The automobile industry had tremendous help from the racing arena where
crashes were frequent, light weight was important, space and size were
critical and fuel could be dangerous. The number of innovations that came out
of car racing is just amazing. There are no such testing grounds for
GA (fortunately, crashes are very infrequent in air races). Innovations
from NASA and Air Force research mostly apply to commercial aircraft.
Just imagine what we could have been enjoying today if we only had the
variety of the kitplane industry in the certified production plane industry
instead!
I really hope that the primary (trainer) category is established soon. We might
even get to see some affordable, reasonably safe, economical AND fun-to-fly
two-seaters in our lifetime.
venky
Richard E Lamb
>...
>we must face the reality that volvo doesn't make a general aviation
>airplane. airplane manufacturers don't have that tv commercial where
>the airplane is pushed off a 4 story parking structure and the occupant
>spaces remain uncompromised.
>dennis hurvitz
Dennis, I recall back in the late 70's or so that Piper took a bunch of
Navajo ariframes and smashed them into a concrete barrier to study crash
dynamics. I _think_ these airframes had been submerged in some Florida
flooding, and the company was concerned about long-term liability of selling
them to customers, so they destroyed them - but got a lot of useful data
in doing so....
Richard Lamb
Prof. David F. Rogers
!In article <24...@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM! ste...@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Steven L Harris) writes:
!!
!! The entire wreckage minus the wing torn
!!off on the tree on the initial impact would have easily fit into the
!!back of the Toyota pickup it landed on. The only parts Ken recognized
!!were the "blob of metal that must have been the engine, and the
!!throwover control yoke".
!
!
!This description matches verbatim my own astonishment at how little was
!left of the A36 which crashed and burned at Gaithersburg trying to go around
!after a gear-up landing. I could not believe it was a Bonanza, for the
!blackened wreckage was no more than 14 inches high; I thought sure it must
!have been an ultralight. In spite of firefighters being on the scene in
!less than a minute (they happened to be on the field, and only needed to
!suit up), two folks got incinerated in that plane. Bonanzas are great
!flyers, but I wouldn't put much stake in the notion of walking away from
!a crash in one.
!
!Dan Masys
Well Dan you're wrong on this one.
The Bonanza is one of the few light GA aircraft that has a `roll cage' built
into the cockpit structure. I recently visited the Beech factory and
inspected the structure in this area very carefully. I was impressed with
both the design, it's strength, and the quality control and detail taken in
the manufacturing process. It is strong.
If you compare the structure around the cockpit area in a 172/182 aircraft
with that of an F33 or A36 you will be amazed (at least I was as an
engineer) at the comparative lack of protection in the 172/182 aircraft to
that in the F33 or A36. Incidentally, I have had both a 172 and an E33A
(same structure as the F33) completely open for inspection.
Of course, if you really screw up, there is no structure that will protect
you. Have you ever seen the results of a head on collison between a car and
a tractor trailer at near highway speeds. I have. There is no way that I as
an engineer could have designed a PRACTICAL structure that would have
protected the people in the car.
I would suggest that you look a bit beyond anecdotal information before
coming to conclusions such as you make above. Aviation is full of
conclusions based on anecdotal information and most of them are wrong. It is
one of the reasons, among many, that we have this liability problem in
aviation today.
Dave Rogers
Gene A. Kennedy
mpa...@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Mike Paton) writes:
> A hyothesis I'll rashly advance here is that this may be the effect of
> magnesium. I believe Beech uses some magnesium in their airframes, unlike
> some other manufacturers. It is more expensive, but also lighter for the
> same strength. We don't think of aluminum burning in aircraft fires, but some
> 1982 Falklands war ships did and rather nastily too. Magnesium ribbon burning
> demos were always popular in school chemistry classes. The dubious point in
> my hypothesis is, how hard is it to get the magnesium to start to burn in the
> form its present in as part of the airframe. Some Glasair kits have the
> magnesium variant of Cleveland brakes. Will a chunk of magnesium 2"x2"x3"
> burn ferociously if heated by a gasoline fire in the presence of oxygen.
>
Well if they do use magnesium that could be the explanation. The basic
UH-1 Huey (as well as other military aircraft) is largely magnesium. As
I recall, it burns at about 4000 degrees F. I have seen Hueys that
crashed and burned that left little more wreckage than that discribed
in this case. What I don't know for sure is if the burning avgas is hot
enough to get the magnesium going, but JP-4 sure could.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
In article <5...@usna.NAVY.MIL> d...@usna.NAVY.MIL (Prof. David F. Rogers) writes:
>
>Well Dan you're wrong on this one.
>
>The Bonanza is one of the few light GA aircraft that has a `roll cage' built
>into the cockpit structure. I recently visited the Beech factory and
>inspected the structure in this area very carefully. I was impressed with
>both the design, it's strength, and the quality control and detail taken in
>the manufacturing process. It is strong.
>
>If you compare the structure around the cockpit area in a 172/182 aircraft
>with that of an F33 or A36 you will be amazed (at least I was as an
>engineer) at the comparative lack of protection in the 172/182 aircraft to
>that in the F33 or A36. Incidentally, I have had both a 172 and an E33A
>(same structure as the F33) completely open for inspection.
>
The issue is, I believe, not so much protection from the G forces at impact
as the likelihood of fuel tank rupture and post-crash fire, (as well as
occupant egress in that situation).
Planes with integral fuel tanks are (according to Aviation Safety, anyway)
more likely to rupture said tanks and be involved in post-crash fires than
are aircraft with rubber fuel bladders; the Cessna 210 is notorious in
this regard (lest you thought this was a Cessna vs. Beech Debate). The
Cessna 310 is similarly scourged with quick drains positioned in a way that
makes it quite likely they will be scraped off during a forget-me-gear,
leading to postcrash fire in an otherwise relatively benign accident.
.
>I would suggest that you look a bit beyond anecdotal information before
>coming to conclusions such as you make above. Aviation is full of
>conclusions based on anecdotal information and most of them are wrong. It is
>one of the reasons, among many, that we have this liability problem in
>aviation today.
>
And I thought the aircraft liability crisis had to do with lawyers and large
settlements; now I find out it is actually my fault! Woe is me; I should
never have been born--all you folks would have been much better off.
Dave's point is well taken, however. I will try to dig up the data on
post crash fires for various types. Overall, the non-V tail Bonanzas have
a good safety record.
Dan Masys
ma...@mcs.nlm.nih.gov
G. David Frye
>My feeling is that if GA had evolved the same way as automobiles, we would have
>seen a lot of innovations for safety that would have made many of the crashes
>survivable. Unfortunately, the designs we have today come from a period
>where the automobiles weren't that safe either. Some of the kitplane
>manufacturers have invested a lot of time into *some* of the safety issues,
>(design and routing of fuel lines and oil lines, firewall design, etc.) but
>there just isn't enough competition and demand to make it worth their while.
>Regulations aren't sufficent motivators for safety.
The slowest speed most GA aircraft can fly is in the 60 mph range. Lower
than that and you're playing passenger to a projectile. While there has been
significant improvement in automobile safety, it hasn't (in my opinion)
lessened the severity or fatality level of accidents "at highway speed",
i.e. on the interstates. A tumbling or flaming car is still a death trap.
The FAA appears to recognize this problem. The latest Sport Aviation has an
item about upcoming certification of small aircraft with stall speeds greater
than 61 knots. The upshot is that the FAA appears inclined, at this time,
to insist that such aircraft have additional systems to improve occupant
survivability after impact. That probably means extra structure, meaning
extra weight, meaning less useful load.
>The automobile industry had tremendous help from the racing arena where
>crashes were frequent, light weight was important, space and size were
>critical and fuel could be dangerous. The number of innovations that came out
>of car racing is just amazing. There are no such testing grounds for
>GA (fortunately, crashes are very infrequent in air races). Innovations
>from NASA and Air Force research mostly apply to commercial aircraft.
"But seriously" -- biggest innovations in auto racing: roll bars, helmets,
fire-retardant suits, and lots of guys standing around race tracks with
extinguishers. Biggest innovations from Air Force research: ejector seats,
helmets, G-suits, and lots of guys standing around carrier decks with
extinguishers.
G A Venkatesh
|>
|> The slowest speed most GA aircraft can fly is in the 60 mph range. Lower
|> than that and you're playing passenger to a projectile. While there has been
|> significant improvement in automobile safety, it hasn't (in my opinion)
|> lessened the severity or fatality level of accidents "at highway speed",
|> i.e. on the interstates. A tumbling or flaming car is still a death trap.
|>
Not quite. The design and placement of fuel tanks (anyone remember that Ford
with an explosive rear-end?), the slanted engine mounts, firmer steering,
better tire-design, etc., have all contributed significantly, I am sure, to the
prevention of fatalities (if not accidents themselves) at any speed. However,
the point is not that the developments in high-speed auto safety would
transfer to aviation safety but that aviation specific innovations may have
been possible in the presence of intense competition for some, if not all,
aspects of flight.
Things like (just brainstorming here, I have absolutely no experience in
aircraft design):
1. Automatic parachute deployment for certain in-flight structural failures.
2. Airframe pieces that would shear off or break apart during specific impacts
to absorb the energy.
3. An airbag mechanism that would deploy all around the cockpit on impact
(but smart enough to recognize hard landings!).
4. Automatic fire extinguishers.
5. Skid prevention (and consequently some kinds of spin prevention) devices.
6. Stall prevention devices.
Other pet ideas, anyone?
Sure, some innovations may take fun out of flying but then some people do
fly to get from point A to point B without having to worry about co-ordinated
turns. Just as you have trade-offs between fun and safety in cars, different
planes could cater to different tastes.
venky
Steve Brecher
(Dr. Daniel R. Masys) says
> Planes with integral fuel tanks are (according to Aviation Safety, anyway)
> more likely to rupture said tanks and be involved in post-crash fires than
> are aircraft with rubber fuel bladders; the Cessna 210 is notorious in
> this regard (lest you thought this was a Cessna vs. Beech Debate).
This seems to imply that Bonanzas don't have rubber fuel cells; but they
do.
--
bre...@btr.com (Steve Brecher)
Counselor Neon
>Not quite. The design and placement of fuel tanks (anyone remember that Ford
>with an explosive rear-end?), the slanted engine mounts, firmer steering,
>better tire-design, etc., have all contributed significantly, I am sure, to the
>prevention of fatalities (if not accidents themselves) at any speed. However,
>the point is not that the developments in high-speed auto safety would
>transfer to aviation safety but that aviation specific innovations may have
>been possible in the presence of intense competition for some, if not all,
>aspects of flight.
I'd like to know what the most common causes of death are in GA accidents
(besides "the ground")... is it more often deceleration trauma or burns?
It seems to me that we ought to be able to design the plane to take an
impact a little better, after having seen some 200+ mph auto racing crashes
where the driver staggered out, more or less still intact. Obviously,
the only way to increase the survivability of a light aircraft to that
of an Indy car would include a helmet and firesuit, but perhaps some
structural changes or changes in the fuel system could help...
>venky
-Neon.-
Julian E Gomez
" extinguishers. Biggest innovations from Air Force research: ejector seats,
" helmets, G-suits, and lots of guys standing around carrier decks with
" extinguishers.
I don't think the Air Force had anything to do with the last item.
:0)
--
"Have you ever wondered if taxation without representation was cheaper?"
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez jul...@riacs.edu
Rick Bressler
mentioned that there is no visual reference when departing Roche at
night until you are at least a couple of hundred feet AGL. This is
quite true. My primary instructor used this as an example for me. He
made the point that while it was quite legal for me to depart from Roche
at night, if I didn't go on the gages (in effect an instrument
departure) I could wind up like that Bonanza. Back then of course he
referenced a couple of similar accidents. This seems to happen at least
once every five years or so up there. At any rate, he took me to Roche
and SHOWED me. One of many valuable lessons that's probably helped to
keep me alive over the years.
I don't know what actually happened in this most recent case, but I can
testify from my experience that vertigo would be a good possibility. I
don't see in the post, did he crash to the north or south of the runway?
I'll bet it was to the north.
The point was that there are times when something perfectly legal and
yet totally foolish without the proper training / preparation. In this
particular case, as a VFR pilot you essentially have to perform an
instrument departure to stay alive. (At least under some conditions).
I've had several instructors since, but nobody who was quite as good in
emphasizing and showing me the essential stuff you actually need to stay
alive!
Rick.
Charles K. Scott
> While there has been
> significant improvement in automobile safety, it hasn't (in my opinion)
> lessened the severity or fatality level of accidents "at highway speed",
> i.e. on the interstates.
Actually, automotive engineers have reduced the severity of exactly
that type of accident. Some examples of improved crash protection are:
side guard door beams, plastic coated windshields to protect passengers
from lacerations upon impact, controlled crush engine and trunk
compartments, roll over valves to shut off fuel when inverted, fuel
tanks located in non critical areas, seat belts designed for ease of
use, and so on. All these improvements help reduce the severity of
crash impacts at highway speeds. All but the safety belts help without
interaction by the driver/passenger. But the belts, which could
produce the most dramatic reduction of injury/fatalities on the
highway, are of absolutely no use if they aren't buckled up.
This is not a flame, just info. Corky Scott
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
When last we left this thread, Professor Rogers was scolding Dr. Masys for
casting aspersions on the crashworthiness of Bonanzas, based on anecdotal
observations. Dave offered his own anecdotal observation of the quality
of the cabin structure in Bonanzas.
But hey, I've been trained as a scientist; I know a hypothesis when it
bludgeons me about the head and neck. So I went to the Aircraft Safety
Ratings published by _Aviation Safety_ to look up the statistics for the
planes being discussed. And the answer is...the envelope, please:
Aircraft Hrs. flown Fatal accid. Fatal rate Total accid. Total rate
total per 10E5 hrs per 10E5 hrs.
Beech 33 617,385 6 0.97 26 4.21
Beech V35 1,947,668 33 1.69 123 6.32
Cessna 182 4,816,887 64 1.33 360 7.47
Cessna172 12,923,681 154 1.19 829 6.41
All GA 91,417,000 1,512 1.65 8,332 9.11
Holy Throw-over Yoke, Batman, Dave Rogers is absolutely right! His Beech E33
is not only the safest retractable in the sky, it is safer than a dowdy old
fixed gear 172. By avoiding the dreaded V tail model (where a large fraction
of the fatal accidents were due to airframe breakup), he has elevated himself
to personal aviations highest plateau of functionality.
After this became all too clear, I looked in Trade-A-Plane at the current
prices of Beech 33's (including 3 aerobatic E33C's currently for sale).
Forget it, Maude, unless you happen to hit the lottery or are looking for
an early 60's vintage bird.
Cessna drivers--obviously aviation's underdogs, not only outclassed but
outsaftied by Walter Beech's yuppy puppies.
Mea Culpa
Dan Masys
ma...@mcs.nlm.nih.gov
G A Venkatesh
|>
|> Aircraft Hrs. flown Fatal accid. Fatal rate Total accid. Total rate
|> total per 10E5 hrs per 10E5 hrs.
|>
|> Beech 33 617,385 6 0.97 26 4.21
|> Beech V35 1,947,668 33 1.69 123 6.32
|>
|> Cessna 182 4,816,887 64 1.33 360 7.47
|> Cessna172 12,923,681 154 1.19 829 6.41
|>
|> All GA 91,417,000 1,512 1.65 8,332 9.11
|>
|>
|> Holy Throw-over Yoke, Batman, Dave Rogers is absolutely right! His Beech E33
|> is not only the safest retractable in the sky, it is safer than a dowdy old
|> fixed gear 172. By avoiding the dreaded V tail model (where a large fraction
I am not taking sides here but I found it rather funny that this appeared
right after the exchange on the validity of statistics. I do hope the
real statisticians in this group would comment on drawing such conclusions
from the data presented.
Here is a non-statistician's conclusion:
" If you fit the characteristics of an average pilot that flies a Beech 33 (in
terms of total hours, currency, sobriety :-), training, etc) and for the sort
of purpose that a Beech 33 is typically used for and in a Beech 33 that is
in average condition for a Beech 33, your likelihood of being in an accident
is only 66% of the likelihood of another pilot who fits the characteristics of
an average pilot that flies a Cessna 172 (in terms of ...) and for the sort
of purpose ... and in a 172 that .... being in an accident.
However, if you as a Beech 33 pilot do get into an accident, there is a
23%(6/26) chance that at least one person in your plane will die while for
the corresponding 172 accident, there is a 18.6% (154/829) chance that at
least one person will die ".
Now, can we get back to the discussion on whether a Bonanza is safe?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) and :-)
This reminds me of the headlines that came out a while ago that a Corvette
(or some other hi-performance car) was the least safe car to be in an
accident since the fraction of fatal accidents out of all accidents for the
Corvette was higher than the corresponding fraction for a Yugo.
venky
Christopher Pettus
>item about upcoming certification of small aircraft with stall speeds greater
>than 61 knots. The upshot is that the FAA appears inclined, at this time,
>to insist that such aircraft have additional systems to improve occupant
>survivability after impact. That probably means extra structure, meaning
>extra weight, meaning less useful load.
Having read the article, I have grave misgivings that this is the
correct direction to be moving in. My worries are three-fold:
1. Is it realistic to expect that improved crashworthiness of the
airframe will be a reasonable substitute for the higher stall speed?
The kinetic energy of the crash goes up awfully fast as the velocity
goes up; can more padding (considering how much more structure can be
realistically put into a light aircraft) really make up for it?
2. A higher stall speed has a host of implications not directly related
to crashworthiness (longer ground roll on landing, etc.); if one of
these guys needs a longer runway to land, will pilots adapt correctly?
3. Is it really that hard to build a single that has the performance
features that the homebuilt advertise and still keep the 61 knots stall
speed? I'm a bit suspicious of the arguments that conforming to Part
23 is so terribly difficult that it is holding back aviation; Part 23
doesn't seem excessively conservative.
--
-- Christophe
"Oh, so you're going to kill me! What a finely-tuned response to the
situation!"
William LeFebvre
[ numbers omitted ... ]
|> Holy Throw-over Yoke, Batman, Dave Rogers is absolutely right! His Beech E33
|> is not only the safest retractable in the sky, it is safer than a dowdy old
|> fixed gear 172.
Another possible way to interpret those numbers is "Beech PILOTS are safer
than Cessna pilots." This is not that difficult to believe, given that
the Cessna (esp. the 172) is a much more popular plane to use as a trainer.
A more interesting way to look at the numbers is this:
Aircraft Hrs. flown Fatal accid. Total accid. Percent accid.
total fatal
Beech 33 617,385 6 26 23%
Beech V35 1,947,668 33 123 27%
Cessna 182 4,816,887 64 360 18%
Cessna172 12,923,681 154 829 18.5%
All GA 91,417,000 1,512 8,332 18%
Suggesting that one should conclude that the Beech is actually LESS safe
in an accident.
|> After this became all too clear, I looked in Trade-A-Plane at the current
|> prices of Beech 33's (including 3 aerobatic E33C's currently for sale).
|> Forget it, Maude, unless you happen to hit the lottery or are looking for
|> an early 60's vintage bird.
Perhaps another contributing factor to the numbers we saw? Perhaps if you
paid more for the bird you will be more careful with it? Or perhaps
there is a correlation between safe pilots and those who are willing and/or
able to spend lots of money on a aircraft.
All this just proves my point: statistics must be interpreted very
carefully.
Now to be fair, statistics CAN BE very useful. PROVIDED that they are
collected and interpreted by someone who knows what he or she is doing,
such as a qualified statistician. I wouldn't trust a programmer to diagnose
a physical ailment, and I wouldn't have an MD evaluate a disk crash
disaster recovery scheme. By the same token, I'm not going to give much
credence to someone's interpretation of statistics unless that person
is qualified to do so. This is what I meant when I said that "you can
get statistics to say whatever you want." Even (and especially)
statisticians are capable of doing that. But they are also the only
people whom I would trust to give a correct and accurate interpretation
of a stack of numerical facts.
I'm sorry if my previous comments offended or upset anyone...
Maybe we should create rec.aviation.statistics :-)
William LeFebvre
Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Northwestern University
<ph...@eecs.nwu.edu>
"I quote Ed Falk every 15 minutes."
--Marc Majka
Bob Watson
ago about General Aviation risks (or safety if you prefer) and costs. The
basic theme of the article was that GA aircraft (and operations) could be made
much safer by adopting transport category safety requirements for example.
(in terms of equipment, pilot training, etc.) The down side to this is that the
smallest GA aircraft would be something like a King Air and obviously be
beyond the reach of most current GA pilot/owners. The point was that GA
equipment and operations are somewhat more risky than Air Carrier operations
but at a considerably reduced cost and that GA operators are bearing that
risk with that understanding in mind.
I'm glad that we have FAR parts 91 and 61 for GA pilots and are not restricted
to part 135, 121, etc. (the Flight Data recorder alone would cost more than the
airplane!, not to mention what it would do to the useful load!) and I'm
willing to accept and minimze the risks through proficiency training, re-
currency training, throurough preflights, etc. and understanding and oper-
ating within the limitations of the pilot (me) and the aircraft as much as I
can. I prefer this option over trying to pay for an airplane built like a
tank, personally. (imagine the fuel consumption!)
William Hopkins
> [ venky's comments and part of Neon's reply deleted ]
>
>It seems to me that we ought to be able to design the plane to take an
>impact a little better, after having seen some 200+ mph auto racing crashes
>where the driver staggered out, more or less still intact. Obviously,
>the only way to increase the survivability of a light aircraft to that
>of an Indy car would include a helmet and firesuit, but perhaps some
>structural changes or changes in the fuel system could help...
The trick to Indy-car crash survival is the crash. Even at 200 mph,
they usually hit something at a relatively low impact speed, since
they're running into smooth walls nearly parallel to their momentum.
Then friction and controlled destruction of the car bleed off the
energy gradually (and stretch out the footage for the evening news).
If they hit something head-on, the sudden deceleration is almost always
fatal. The drivers therefore get very titchy about things they _can_
hit head-on.
This suggests to me that impact causes most fatalities from in-flight
accidents (loss of control, inadvertantly running into things, etc.),
while landing and take-off accident fatalities, where the impact may be
survivable, increasingly result from fire. Anybody got data on this?
The FAA's response to higher stalling speeds seems to support it, since
they seem to be concerned with the physical structure protecting the
occupants from impact at approach and landing speeds.
The implications for improving survival rates are obvious. If you
spread the aluminum across Mt. Surprise, ain't no crash cage can help.
But arranging to keep the fuel where it's supposed to be if you should
really mess up a landing sounds like a great investment.
Bill (The Safest Accident Is The One You Avoid) Hopkins
G. David Frye
about the Sport Aviation article I mentioned which suggests trading off
improved "crashworthiness" for higher stall speeds desired by some small
aircraft designers. Chris has three concerns:
1. Can aircraft really be made more crashworthy has the impact speed goes up?
2. Higher stall speeds also mean longer ground roll and special adaptation
by pilots for the faster/longer situation.
3. It's hard to believe that 61 knots is such a difficult standard to meet.
I had the same concerns after reading the article. I have read, though, that
it would simplify many designs if the requirement to be "flyable" at low
speeds was optional. Some aircraft wouldn't need flaps or other high-lift
devices, thus lightening the structure and shortening manufacturing time.
I don't think I'd want to fly something in which I'd have to make routine
approaches at 90 or 100 knots, since I see a lot of 2000' and 3000' runways,
but I'm sure there are pilots who would happily accept such conditions.
(Comments about living on fault lines gracefully withheld.)
Lawrence H. Miller
>
>The trick to Indy-car crash survival is the crash. Even at 200 mph,
>they usually hit something at a relatively low impact speed, since
>they're running into smooth walls nearly parallel to their momentum.
>
Several years ago the NTSB did a series of three special reports
on "General Aviation Crashworthiness" (*). Here's the abstract
from the third one (the only one I could dig up at the moment):
"This report is the last in a series of three reports
by the NTSB as a result of its General Aviation
Crashworthiness Program. The purpose of this program
is to provide information to support changes in
crashworthiness design standards for seating and
restraint systems in general aviation airplanes. A
Phase One report presents a methodology for
documenting impact severity. A Phase Two report
presents specific data on survivable accidents which
demonstrate that if all occupants wear shoulder
harnesses, fatalities are expected to be reduced by 20
percent. Eighty-eight percent of the seriously
injured persons in survivable crashes are expected to
experience significantly fewer life-threatening
injuries. The Phase Three report provides analytical
results of actual crashes. The values of acceleration
loads and velocity changes that occupants can sustain
in survivable, modern general aviation airplane
accidents are defined. This report also discusses
specific crashworthiness problems including seat/restraint
systems that failed, shoulder harnesses that were not
worn, and inadequate or nonexistent seat stroking
ability. [The earlier report indicated that energy
absorbing seats could have had the potential of
reducing significantly the injuries of 34 percent of
seriously injured occupants.]"
This is a wonderful litany, complete with photos, of the
horrors of GA aircraft accidents. But there is hope,
particularly with the use of shoulder harnesses. If we
also had better seats--designed for vertical loads--we
could significantly reduce fatalities.
-----------
(*) Report No. NTSB/SR-85/02, September 4, 1985. Available through
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
--
Larry Miller
The Aerospace Corporation
lmi...@aero.org
(213 soon to be 310)336-5597
Jeff Lo
>fire-retardant suits, and lots of guys standing around race tracks with
>extinguishers.
I dunno. Did you happen to see the crash of the Formula 1 Ferrari that
Gerhard Berger was driving a couple years back (was it in Mexico?). If
I recall correctly, his front wing broke, he lost downforce, and had no
steering at the entrance to one of the fastest corners in F1. He was
doing ~150 mph when he left the track, slid across the grass and into
a wall at >100mph. This was one of the very few recent incidents where
the fuel cell ruptured, but the amazing part was that even with the
impact, and the car shedding parts all along the wall, the "driver's box"
remained intact, and he got away with a few minor injuries. Granted,
without the corner workers arriving on the scene a few seconds later,
Gerhard would have been in trouble with the fire, but remember, these days
a fuel cell rupturing is the exception, not the rule. These cars are also
very light, something less than 1000 kg if I remember right. With this
weight to work with they have fuel cells, a lot of fuel (no refueling
allowed in F1), crash resistant driver's boxes, and a 6-700 hp engine (no
more turbo's allowed in F1, so the 1000hp 1.5 liter qualifying engines are
a thing of the past). It seems there's more going on than just roll bars
and helmets. Alas, because of the costs involved (and probably the
liability aspect too) it will probably be a while before we get carbon
fiber GA aircraft which can withstand a 100 knot impact with the passenger
compartment reasonably intact and fuel cells which aren't going to rupture
on impact.
--
Jeff Lo - PP-ASEL & Amateur Triumph (TR6) Mechanic
Elan Computer Group, Inc.
j...@elan.com, ..!{ames,uunet}!elan!jlo
888 Villa Street, Third Floor, Mountain View, CA 94041, 415-964-2200
Tim W Smith
< accidents (loss of control, inadvertantly running into things, etc.),
< while landing and take-off accident fatalities, where the impact may be
< survivable, increasingly result from fire. Anybody got data on this?
There was an article sometime in the last couple of years in the San
Jose Mercury News about airline crashes. There were some interesting
points (this is all from memory, so I may have blown some of these):
- In most airline crashes, it is the fire that kills the
most. The impact itself is usually survivable, assuming
that your seat stays attached to the floor.
- One problem is that passengers are often knocked out
during impact, and so can't escape the fire. Often the
passengers are knocked out by things that break free in
the crash, such as seats.
- Automobile seats are required to stay attached to the
rest of the car in impacts of up to something like 50g's,
while airliner seats are only required to stay attached
up to something much lower (I think it was 6g's).
There was a company mentioned that has developed some sort of enclosed
seat for airliners. This is padded and fireproof. When a collision is
sensed, it seals itself. It has an air supply, and can keep the enclosed
passenger alive for something like 60 minutes in the middle of the
post crash fire. However, installing these seats would cost a lot
and would reduce seating capacity by something like 20 or 30%, so
ticket prices would go up. No airline has expressed interest in this
seat because they don't think that passengers would be willing to
pay the extra price for this level of safety.
Tim Smith
Prof. David F. Rogers
!In article <1991Jul16....@nlm.nih.gov!, ma...@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
![ numbers omitted ... ]
!
!|! Holy Throw-over Yoke, Batman, Dave Rogers is absolutely right! His Beech E33
!|! is not only the safest retractable in the sky, it is safer than a dowdy old
!|! fixed gear 172.
!
!Another possible way to interpret those numbers is "Beech PILOTS are safer
!than Cessna pilots." This is not that difficult to believe, given that
!the Cessna (esp. the 172) is a much more popular plane to use as a trainer.
!
!A more interesting way to look at the numbers is this:
!
!Aircraft Hrs. flown Fatal accid. Total accid. Percent accid.
! total fatal
!
!Beech 33 617,385 6 26 23%
!Beech V35 1,947,668 33 123 27%
!
!Cessna 182 4,816,887 64 360 18%
!Cessna172 12,923,681 154 829 18.5%
!
!All GA 91,417,000 1,512 8,332 18%
!
!Suggesting that one should conclude that the Beech is actually LESS safe
!in an accident.
!
!|! After this became all too clear, I looked in Trade-A-Plane at the current
!|! prices of Beech 33's (including 3 aerobatic E33C's currently for sale).
!|! Forget it, Maude, unless you happen to hit the lottery or are looking for
!|! an early 60's vintage bird.
Actually I missed Dan's subsequent posting--mailer problems!!!!
Re Williams comments. I looked at the two aircraft from an
engineering point of view and commented on the relative survivability
based on looking at the structure surrounding the cabin area.
I seldom believe statistics. I fundamentally believe that an
aircraft is only as safe as the pilot. Many fatal Beech accidents
are a result of operating the aircraft outside the envelope.
A typical case is the pilot that flys into IMC, loses it, the
aircraft exceeds Vne, the pilot comes out of the bottom of the
overcast, wow the ground is coming up fast, haul back on the yoke
and pieces start falling off. Fatal accident.
This is one slippery bird. The drag coefficient of a Bonanza is
the same +- a very little bit as that of a P-51!!!!!
In smooth air it is very common to be in the bottom of the yellow
arc on a long let down if you keep the power up to prevent
shock cooling the engine. I have seen nearly 200 knots a couple
of times.
As for cost, I don't find the E33A much more expensive than the
172. My miles per gallon is just slightly lower, insurance is
about $400/year more, and the annual was just $200 more than
the 172's and included ACF50, a reweld of the right exhaust
stack and the cost of the rudder spar bracket STP. In contrast
the 172 annual did not include ACF50 or any real repairs to the
aircraft. Both were owner assisted at the same shop (Safe-Flight
at Bay Bridge which I highly recommend).
The initial cost was more but I'll get that back when I sell the
aircraft.
Incidentally, I had been looking for an Arrow III roughly 1977
without the T tail and the long range tanks. The Arrow was
about the same cost as the E33A, about 10 years newer and not
as well equipped with avionics and cruised about 30 knots slower
on 3-4 gals less fuel per hour. In addition, the Beech is much
better built than the Piper. Parts are a bit expensive but
at least they are available. Sigh....
From that point of view the E33A looked like a much better deal
and I think it has turned out that way.
Dave Rogers
Prof. David F. Rogers
!3. Is it really that hard to build a single that has the performance
!features that the homebuilt advertise and still keep the 61 knots stall
!speed? I'm a bit suspicious of the arguments that conforming to Part
!23 is so terribly difficult that it is holding back aviation; Part 23
!doesn't seem excessively conservative.
The problem here is that of commercially practical aircraft.
Look closely at a Glasair or Ventura. These are 2 seat aircraft
with rather small cockpits to get the required small cross-section
needed to reduce the drag and get the performance you suggest.
They also have rather high stall speeds.
With the advent of turboprop engines such as the PT-6 there is
sufficient power available from a single engine with the
required reliability to build a commercially successful
4-8 passenger corporate aircraft. But to do that with the
required cabin size you must increase the wing loading (make
the wings smaller for a given weight). Increasing the wing
loading increases the stall speed. So, one either accepts the
higher stall speed or adds rather complex high lift devices
which of course increases the weight and the cost. You are
then left in a Catch-22 situation.
The result is that the 61 knot stall speed is really holding back
corporate aviation and the FAA is addressing this problem.
Dave Rogers
de...@ace.austin.ibm.com
individuals who were in the Bonanza crash at Roche Harbor.
The pilot was David J. Mees, CEO of Credence Systems Corp. and the
passengers were Martin Chizzick of Exabyte and LaCretia James formerly
of Semiconductor Test Solutions.
According to the article, they had stopped over returning from an
Alaska trip. And "according to state police, witnesses said that
Mees's Beechcraft Bonanza appeared to have problems on takeoff,
narrowly missing a home near the Roche Harbor airstrip before crashing
into a nearby forest."
Deene Ogden.
Gregory TRAVIS
>As for cost, I don't find the E33A much more expensive than the
>172. My miles per gallon is just slightly lower, insurance is
>about $400/year more, and the annual was just $200 more than
>the 172's and included ACF50, a reweld of the right exhaust
>stack and the cost of the rudder spar bracket STP. In contrast
>the 172 annual did not include ACF50 or any real repairs to the
>aircraft. Both were owner assisted at the same shop (Safe-Flight
>at Bay Bridge which I highly recommend).
Wow, Dave's concept of not much more expensive is a lot different
from mine! Paying $400 more for my insurance would nearly double it. I pay
$500.00 a year for $1,000,000 and $35,000 worth of hull on my 1979 172.
Likewise his annual cost increase is nearly double my cost of annuals
which run about $250-300.00
Not knocking your figures Dave - I too would think of every justification
for a Bonanza! But $600 extra a year would make it difficult for me...
--
Gregory Reed Travis C I C A
Center for Innovative Computing Applications|gr...@cica.indiana.edu (work)
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 |frognix!gr...@cica.indiana.edu (hm)
Bob Watson
>
>All this just proves my point: statistics must be interpreted very
>carefully.
>
>Now to be fair, statistics CAN BE very useful. PROVIDED that they are
>collected and interpreted by someone who knows what he or she is doing,
>
I would rather know why the accidents occur, as opposed to how often. By
knowing why, then I can learn so I won't have to learn the hard way.
Knowing that n Cessnas vs. y Beechcrafts (or from earlier positings, x autos
vs. z GA Aircraft) crash, doesn't really prove anything useful. (though it does
provide plenty of fuel for discussion!) This thread has been instrumental in
changing my feelings towards the "gross" statistics.
Prof. David F. Rogers
!d...@usna.NAVY.MIL (Prof. David F. Rogers) writes:
!
!!As for cost, I don't find the E33A much more expensive than the
!!172. My miles per gallon is just slightly lower, insurance is
!!about $400/year more, and the annual was just $200 more than
!!the 172's and included ACF50, a reweld of the right exhaust
!!stack and the cost of the rudder spar bracket STP. In contrast
!!the 172 annual did not include ACF50 or any real repairs to the
!!aircraft. Both were owner assisted at the same shop (Safe-Flight
!!at Bay Bridge which I highly recommend).
!
!Wow, Dave's concept of not much more expensive is a lot different
!from mine! Paying $400 more for my insurance would nearly double it. I pay
!$500.00 a year for $1,000,000 and $35,000 worth of hull on my 1979 172.
!
!Likewise his annual cost increase is nearly double my cost of annuals
!which run about $250-300.00
!
!Not knocking your figures Dave - I too would think of every justification
!for a Bonanza! But $600 extra a year would make it difficult for me...
ok Greg, but note that the figures were a comparison with the 172.
Also, I do not try to justify the Bonanza nor did I try to justify
the 172. One should never try to justify one's toys. You do it
because you can afford it and you want to. Period. When you no longer
want to or can no longer afford it you stop doing it.
Dave Rogers
Jim Schinnerer
>
> Sure, some innovations may take fun out of flying but then some people do
> fly to get from point A to point B without having to worry about co-ordinated
> turns. Just as you have trade-offs between fun and safety in cars, different
> planes could cater to different tastes.
>
> venky
This poses an interesting question. If the manufacturers made an airplane
as easy to fly as a car is to drive, *EVERYONE* could fly it. (This assumes
that everyone can drive, which may not be a valid assumption.)
But what happens when it breaks? Pilots are trained to fly the aircraft,
but who couldn't do that? When the airplane breaks, the pilot needs to
know a whole lot more.
Venky's list of safety features would add several complicated systems to
an aircraft. We would have an emergency 'chute cutaway checklist, and
an emergency airbag deflation checklist. Perhaps it would be better...
Should private aircraft have the ability to dump fuel? Why not?
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer - PP-ASEL-IA | Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X - "Buster" | Cupertino, CA
Hang IV - Magic KISS | (408) 447-6319
email - schi...@hpihoah.HP.COM |
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss
>
>So, GA flying, per mile is 20 times as dangerous, per mile, as driving.
>
>Now, these are completely wild guesses, but I think they are within
>the correct order of magnitude. Anyone want to correct me?
>
Sure! I knew I kept that article around for something!
Statistics from a reputable source (means: don't have an axe to grind)
say that per mile, general aviation is 5 times more dangerous than driving.
(Failure Analysis Associates are the source, and say that "values for some
activities may vary from year to year")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot) "I am fighting things I cannot see;
br...@hpfcdj.HP.COM I think it's called my destiny
that I am changing" - Susan Vega
gregory.p.kochanski
>> / hpihoah:rec.aviation / ve...@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) / 2:53 pm Jul 15, 1991 /
>>
>> Sure, some innovations may take fun out of flying but then some people do
>> fly to get from point A to point B without having to worry about co-ordinated
>> turns. Just as you have trade-offs between fun and safety in cars, different
>> planes could cater to different tastes.
>>
>> venky
>
>This poses an interesting question. If the manufacturers made an airplane
>as easy to fly as a car is to drive, *EVERYONE* could fly it. (This assumes
>that everyone can drive, which may not be a valid assumption.)
>
>an aircraft. We would have an emergency 'chute cutaway checklist, and
>an emergency airbag deflation checklist. Perhaps it would be better...
The entire philosophy of aircraft human interfaces would have to change.
As I see it, there are two optimal ways to connect between people
and machines. First (the small airplane school) is to have the operator
do everything. That way, he's certain to be paying attention,
and he's certain to know what's going on, rather than asleep, or playing cards.
As an option, you can have automated systems that remind the human when
something needs to be done.
The other good scheme is to have the machine do everything.
Automate the *ell out of all systems, until the pilot just points to
where he wants to go, and the plane goes there (if the computer decides
that it's safe and legal). In this mode, you can't depend on the human
to be able to catch the machine's errors, because humans get bored
when they're not busy. This is the problem with present nuclear power
plants, by the way. A plant might have one accidental shutdown in ten
years, and they expect the bored, unpracticed, operators to remember not only
what to do, but how the complicated automated systems might make a mistake.
The same thing would go with airplanes.
A half-and-half approach leaves you with an automated system which
isn't completely capable of handling problems, but is probably so
complicated that no one but its designers will know how to correct for
its mistakes.
Vincent Heuring
>>
>>This poses an interesting question. If the manufacturers made an airplane
>>as easy to fly as a car is to drive, *EVERYONE* could fly it.
PILOTAGE
After this era of great pilots is gone, as the era of great sea
captains has gone---each nudged aside by the march of inventive
genius, by steel cogs and copper discs and hair-thin wires on
white faces that are dumb, but speak---it will be found, I think,
that all the science of flying has been captured in the breadth
of an instrument board, but not the religion of it.
One day the stars will be as familiar to each man as the land-
marks, the curves, and the hills on the road that leads to his
door, and one day this will be an airborne life. But by then men
will have forgotten how to fly; they will be passengers on
machines whose conductors are carefully promoted to a familiarity
with labelled buttons, and in whose minds knowledge of the sky
and the wind and the way of weather will be extraneous as passing
fiction.
Beryl Markham,
"West with the Night"
--
---
Vincent Heuring Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Colorado - Boulder heu...@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Bill Arnold
wing of my plane on many occasions, just because I wanted
to stick around the plane, see what is going on, be part
of the "hanging out at the airport" bunch, when I had
plenty of money.
Bill Arnold
bi...@hpfcma.fc.hp.com
"No guarantees."