SR 22 down
- Thread starter pmanton
- Start date
The pilot walked away alive. Live with it. You don't know if the pilot could see the ground conditions when the catastrophic oil failure happened. In any case, second guessing their actions because you are sure there was a better way to survive is potentially dangerous if it leads to them to feel peer pressure that might delay or cancel an otherwise better decision.LearDriver said:
Would you do a forced landing in a corn field like this pilot did?:LDJones said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090623X33607&key=1
Amazing what a simple ditch will do. If you think those wide open fields of are safe for landing, I can dig up more NTSB reports to show they aren't always what they seem.
According to this study, about 5% of forced landings result in fatalities:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187964
Accordng to an AVweb article linked below, in all cases where the BRS was deployed within its operating window no one has died in the landing, though there have been injuries. (In one case a Cirrus landed on a steep slope of a mountain and slid down about 1/4 mile and was eventually helicoptered out and repaired to flying condition; see comments attached to the article): http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_BRSDiscussion_205999-1.html
5% chance of dying vs close to 0% chance of dying. Hmmm. Better to be a dead PIC than a live parachute passenger, eh?
Mooney's happen to have a slightly higher rate of fatal accidents than Cirri according to the following Aviation Consumer article that happens to compare the Cirrus against several equivalents, including Mooney M20s:DavidWhite said:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/621587.aspx
So while about 16% of the Cirrus SR22 accidents had post-crash fires to the Mooney's 11% to 12% (about 45% more), the Mooney had more fatal accidents per flight hour than the Cirrus SR22 (about 27% more.) So according to their methodology, you are simply more likely to die, per hour of flight, in a Mooney, irrespective of the probability of a post-crash fire.
I've posted these stats before and you continue to repeat the same irrelevancy. I presume it is due to an enhanced fear of fire?
The article was written by Aviation Consumer magazine, not Cirrus. Someone in the Cirrus pilot's group appears to have gotten permission to post a reprint on the Cirrus pilot website. The article does not praise Cirrus at all for the accident rate of their airplanes - and the statistics they computed for the Mooney were an incidental byproduct of their investigations.DavidWhite said:An article about Cirrus safety by Cirrus I'm sure is objective an doesn't hold the slightest bit of bias
The safety of your Mooney and the probability of it being involved in an accident are largely in your control. It is obviously a more demanding airplane to fly than a Cessna 172, which has a very good safety record.
Wow - that sure puts a different complexion on things. Bummer about the plane flipping later. Wonder what the insurance company will say?scottd said:Here's a pic of the airplane after the accident provided by the pilot. You can see it came down flat. After the accident, the pilot was trying to get first responders to find him while talking to them on his cell phone (he also had a Garmin 496 on battery power so he was able to give them GPS coordinates). But they had difficulty finding him. So, he inflated the chute with the hope it would be easier to spot. Eventually the Sheriff saw it in the distance.
