Cessna 310 hits a house in Riverside, CA

N884 said:
Doesn’t really win/lose arguments... what we know is every CAPS deployment within the envelope (and some outside the envelope) have been a 100% successful outcome.
Click to expand...
I note that you did not say that in 100% of those cases CAPS successfully deployed.
 
Yikes. God bless

That report mentions the right front passenger had 21% carbon monoxde in their system whereas others didn’t. -wonder if they lived for a bit before they succumbed to that fire-tough way to go
 
N884 said:
...In related news, can you say the same for every twin pilot that lost an engine? A 100% success rate? Of course not. I’m sick of these twins killing people. Gives us all a black eye. I know the old guard will be quick to point out why it won’t happen to them... me? I’m not too proud. The more outs my family has, the better.
Click to expand...

In related news, can you say the same for every Cirrus pilot that lost an engine? 100% success rate? Of course not. In fact, in some cases they fatally piled in their fantastic plastic while the engine was still running fine.

The Cirrus piston airplanes are impressive, especially the SR22T. And the statistical data around CAPS is irrefutable, as is the evidence of the effectiveness of the Cirrus training in the post-2010 fatal accident stats.

However, in my relatively short time on this forum at least two members, including @James_Dean, have made single engine on-airport landings in their piston twins. Because nothing got bent they don't form part of the statistics.

I fly a twin because I don't do single engine IFR in IMC. As a pilot, or a passenger. Parachute or no parachute. Period. There's nothing "old guard" about it. It's simply prudent personal risk management.

People will continue to kill themselves in twin engine airplanes. And people will continue to kill themselves in Cirrus airplanes too. Your blanket CAPS (always) > twin is still nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I would trade my D55 straight across for an SR22T :) Even to my addled mind, "pull the red handle" seems easier than gearup-flapsup-knobs-forward-identify-verify-feather-omg-maintainblueline-climbwiththeferocityofacoldbeerfart-missallthetrees-circlebackeventually-land
 
N884 said:
We also know that CAPS have been used in only roughly 1% of the fleet. Probably not worth arguing about so much. Sadly there are (old?) pilots who still fly their Cirrus into a smoking hole—COPA is trying hard to train/retrain/help. I once heard military had same lack of take up when first using ejection seats.
Click to expand...


The Air Force has made more than a few training films about the decision making process regarding ejections.

Some of the comments made on POA over the last few years are indicative of the stigma attached to pulling the handle, and these films illustrate the fatal effects those opinions can produce.



 
asicer said:
It this guy couldn't remember how to file or read back a clearance what makes you think he'd remember how to pull the red handle?
Click to expand...

Is true
 
GRG55 said:
In related news, can you say the same for every Cirrus pilot that lost an engine? 100% success rate? Of course not. In fact, in some cases they fatally piled in their fantastic plastic while the engine was still running fine.

The Cirrus piston airplanes are impressive, especially the SR22T. And the statistical data around CAPS is irrefutable, as is the evidence of the effectiveness of the Cirrus training in the post-2010 fatal accident stats.

However, in my relatively short time on this forum at least two members, including @James_Dean, have made single engine on-airport landings in their piston twins. Because nothing got bent they don't form part of the statistics.

I fly a twin because I don't do single engine IFR in IMC. As a pilot, or a passenger. Parachute or no parachute. Period. There's nothing "old guard" about it. It's simply prudent personal risk management.

People will continue to kill themselves in twin engine airplanes. And people will continue to kill themselves in Cirrus airplanes too. Your blanket CAPS (always) > twin is still nonsense.
Click to expand...

I once heard the second engine will always fly you to the scene of the crash.

Again: 100% of CAPS pulls, in envelope (and many outside of envelope) were survived.

Mathematically doesn’t two engines means 2x the chance of engine problems?
 
Lindberg said:
I note that you did not say that in 100% of those cases CAPS successfully deployed.
Click to expand...

True. People continue to fly their Cirrus into the ground. I’ve contributed towards COPA, a nonprofit, trying to change that. A cirrus is exactly like the plane you fly—but the last line on our most feared checklists is “pull handle”. Don’t see the bad news here?
 
N884 said:
I once heard the second engine will always fly you to the scene of the crash.

Again: 100% of CAPS pulls, in envelope (and many outside of envelope) were survived.

Mathematically doesn’t two engines means 2x the chance of engine problems?
Click to expand...

I like the Cirrus. People who spread BS to support the Cirrus? Not so much.
 
N884 said:
I once heard the second engine will always fly you to the scene of the crash.
Click to expand...

The old joke goes, if you are flying a single engine and the engine quits, you glide to the crash site.

If you are in a twin and an engine quits, you fly to the crash site.

I have never had a total engine failure in a single, but a few times I had a severe reduction in power. Fortunately I was close enough to a landing strip to land safely. I had one engine failure in a twin, and after shutting it down and securing the engine, I flew to the airport I wanted to land at. And man, there was a crowd of people waiting to see if I splatted the airplane or not.


N884 said:
Mathematically doesn’t two engines means 2x the chance of engine problems?
Click to expand...

That is like saying everytime you drive on a public highway your chance of dying in a crash goes up.
 
N884 said:
Mathematically doesn’t two engines means 2x the chance of engine problems?
Click to expand...
OK, if you want to talk math...

Let's say your chances of an engine failure are 1 in 6. Let's represent that by getting a snake eye on a dice roll. If you roll one die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a snake eye. If you roll two dice, you have an 10 in 36 chance of getting one snake eye. So no, it's not 2x. However, your chances of getting two snake eyes are 1 in 36.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
OK, if you want to talk math...

Let's say your chances of an engine failure are 1 in 6. Let's represent that by getting a snake eye on a dice roll. If you roll one die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a snake eye. If you roll two dice, you have an 10 in 36 chance of getting one snake eye. So no, it's not 2x. However, your chances of getting two snake eyes are 1 in 36.
Click to expand...
11/36 is not quite double 1/6. But neither are most engine failures random. Regardless, it's correct that with two engines, you have twice as many opportunities (rolls) for something to go wrong. But as you point out, that doesn't necessarily make it twice as probable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top