init4fun

Do you remember one time we were talking here , and you mentioned full scale aircraft not having horns ? And Crispy especially took you to task on it ? On the news today is a small plane crash onto a California highway and a car was hit and one of the car's occupants died . Looks like the car was hit from behind . Ya gotta wonder if the plane had a loud blaring horn if the driver might have heard it coming from behind and pulled off the shoulder and out of the way before the impact .

With all the rules being dumped on us who fly RC models that haven't killed any uninvolved bystanders lately , Maybe it IS time to demand all aircraft have a horn like you said 3 or 4 months ago when we discussed it , eh ? Or better yet , that each and every damned little GA aircraft MUST be fitted with one of those parachute devices that deploy in emergencies just like this one (it's said mechanical failure caused power loss , the perfect situation for the emergency chute) before they're allowed to fly again ?

This may be part "tongue in cheek" , but in reality , why SHOULD it be the RC world that gets the microscope up it's butt when GA kills more folks per year than ALL aircraft modeling has in the time it's existed , and still yet the GAs are allowed to fly minus safety equipment that has been proven to save lives in instances exactly like this one ? I say ground every damn one of em till a proper emergency recovery chute is fitted . The time THAT will take will keep them buisy enough that our toys will be the LEAST of their concern ....

I mean , it IS all about SAFETY , , , right ?????

Sport_Pilot

IMO small GA planes are much more dangerous than they should be. Did you know that on most high wing models the fuel tubing is in the cockpit? Noting between you and the fuel line but a bit of interior moulding. So if you survive the crash, and the fuel line ruptures you will be sprayed by raw fuel, and there is a good spark during most crash's. Would you expect to be safe while taxing at less than 5 MPH. There was a few incidences where the planes wing hit an object at less than 5 MPH, pulled the fuel line loose from a fitting at the wing root and the occupants burned to death. Not sure about now but the seat belts of former small aircraft were worthless in a crash and good only to keep you head from hitting the ceiling in turbulence. Air bags have only recently been introduced, and the NTSB recommended shoulder restraints since 1970. Many say they don't help in a crash, as the plane is moving too fast and the structure is too light. Even so there are many crash's that happen on takeoff and landing that are below the aircrafts stall speed.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

And you are honestly going to tell us that you think that a horn on that aircraft would have prevented this California highway crash ? How INSANE !

init4fun

And you are honestly going to tell us it 100% couldn't have given the driver warning enough to get out of the way of the falling aircraft ?

And what of the emergency chute , Granpooba ? Are you gonna tell us THAT wouldn't have saved the car's occupant either ?

Gee , I guess safety is only OK when it's us RCers being forced to practice it , while GA kills & maims more in a year than we ever have or ever will ?

All the while there ARE safety devices , like the emergency chute , that are specifically designed to save lives in instances just as these ?

The whole point of this discussion is that our friend Sport Pilot IS right , general aviation IS a far greater public health menace than our RC toys are , and yet the one device that could specifically prevent many GA deaths isn't mandated . That , my friend , is the textbook example of insanity , to bemoan air deaths all the while not requiring the very technology that was designed to save some of those lives !

Horns , , Indeed !!!!

Silent-AV8R

The car that was hit was parked on the shoulder at the time of the accident. The driver had pulled over to do something with the Bluetooth in the car.

That particular Lancair did not have a BRS.

He was reportedly looking like he was going to land on the Palomar RC field until seeing the field was occupied by numerous people and rider mowers doing a field day event.

Weirdly enough, the same plane, with a different owner and pilot at the time, made an emergency landing on I-15 back in 2000.

Somebody died in this, so way to go turing a tragedy for that person's family into fodder for an epically stupid thread on RCU, and that is saying something considering the inane exchanges that occur in this forum.

init4fun

So Bill , Having an emergency chute on ALL small GA aircraft is "Inane" and "stupid" , is it ?

When it damned well COULD have saved the automobile's occupant's life ?

Maybe both you and pooba need a lesson in what "tongue in cheek" means regarding horns on aircraft , but the parachute issue is very real , and SHAME ON YOU for evoking the "somebody died so you can't talk about this" defense , that shows YOUR need to find conflict in everything , rather than add meaningful content to anything .

YES Bill , this tragedy is the textbook example of how safety is only applied in aviation where it's convienent . Sorry your SO blinded by your obvious grief to see that !

PS , a "tragedy" , by it's very nature , involves death . Maybe we shouldn't ever talk about ANY death , eh Bill ? Maybe we should do like you would , put our heads in the sand and never examine the WHY of these deaths ?

With thinking like Bill's , we'd still be using Hydrogen in blimps , cause we'd have never discussed the Hindenberg , cause , well , after all , some people actually DIED there , and it'd be too much for poor poor Bill's grief to handle ....

init4fun

Oh , and , by the way Mr. arbiter of the world's grief ,

I'll BET you right about now , the family your SO concerned for , would rather see MY version of this discussion , that ALL GA should be mandated to have the emergency chute have been put into place , maybe their loved one WOULD still be alive today had that little POS lancair had the chute !

But , it's far more important that the FAA regulate model planes , right Bill ? And that we can't even discuss this , right Bill ?

Hydro Junkie

In this case, the pilot tried to do the right thing by trying to land at the local airfield. A safety chute wasn't really an option or needed since the pilot had actually set the plane into a landing configuration AND the plane was already too low for the chute to function properly. What must be remembered is a safety chute is designed to drop a plane STRAIGHT DOWN at a survivable speed in the event of a catastrophic failure. In this case, the plane's engine lost power, the pilot tried to land at a field and, discovering it was unusable, went for the only available option left, the freeway. This is a case of wrong place at the wrong time for the car. What must also be remembered is that the car's driver was on the freeway, sitting still by choice. Had he not stopped to play with something he shouldn't have been, in this case Bluetooth, he wouldn't have been sitting in that location or been hit. For that matter, the car could have been hit just as easily by another car being driven by someone texting or not paying attention to what was going on around them instead of the aircraft.

Sport_Pilot

Speaking of the engine failure. Why do only the newest GA planes have electronic magnetos? When I owned a plane I had more trouble with magnetos and magneto failure than you could shake a stick at. Never a problem with my electronic ignition in my car. Some homebuilders replaced on magneto with an automobile ignition system because they were so reliable. But the FAA kept stalling on their approval. My plane had almost the same magneto as my grandfathers tractor LOL.

Same thing can be said for engine cylinders, valves, and camshafts. Poor quality and design IMO. Have the FAA approved unleaded gas yet? If you don't die from crashing your plane you may die from lead poisoning. Some of the aviation has enough lead to kill you.

init4fun

Thank You for the reasonable response Hydro .

Thing is , if every GA had the chute , when the engine quit in this instance , it would have given the pilot one more option that he didn't have without it . I have seen aircraft come down using those chutes and yes they come down hard . Had the lancair just dropped onto the car it could have crushed it enough to kill the occupant . Or maybe not , maybe he'd have lived . But without that one other option , he had one less chance to survive , right ? And the FAA who is supposed to be doing all it can to protect the earthbound public from the perils of aviation has instead focused on regulating our RC models rather than concentrate on forcing the small GA craft that have the majority of the accidents to have this one proven tool to help mitigate the death rate ? Yes I do realize that a giant parachute isn't the answer to every GA death , but in a case like this there IS a strong argument to be made that the chute just may have brought a different result to the situation . I kinda see these chutes as being akin to the parking brake on a car , not the first choice to bring it to a stop but in a pinch where the first choice is out of commission , it's better than no second choice at all . This pilot had no second choice , he HAD to land that crippled plane or die trying . The second choice , the chute , would have greatly reduced the chances of any death in my opinion . And Boo Hiss on the FAA for dropping the ball on having all GA fitted with this proven lifesaver , while they dither instead regulating our RC models !

Sport_Pilot

While I agree that the FAA should be requiring the chute, in most cases, I do not think it practical in all cases. For example it would be difficult and possibly counter productive to require them to be installed retroactively on many aircraft. Especially old classics.

init4fun

Sport my Friend , I believe it's a matter of the industry running the FAA and not the other way around . The costs associated with incorporating these modern safety enhancements ensure they won't be in place till mandated . And they'll never be when the government entity that's supposed to be ensuring aviation safety is focused solely on protecting aviation from the public , while ignoring protecting the public from GA ! Since the date the FAA first decided to step into the model aircraft hobby there have been exactly zero deaths involving RC models hitting occupied airplanes . How many GA deaths have there been in that same timeframe to those flying and those on the ground ? And yes , the antiquated technology they soldier on with is a factor in many of these deaths , I'll 100% agree , since engine failure is the #1 reported cause of all GA crashes .

init4fun

Sure thing , I can see the grandfathered "historic aircraft" exemption to not butcher classics just as antique cars aren't subject to the same standards as today's cars are . But the fractionally small numbers of those , held against the numbers of run of the mill Cessnas , Lancairs and so on makes the risk posed by them far smaller due to their lack of presence . It ain't perfectly restored P-40 Warhawks dropping outta the skies on a weekly basis , it's the run of the mill "joe sixpack" Cessna flying with your Grandpappy's Hit & miss magneto

init4fun

One other detail here ;


The guy sitting on the side of the road was doing exactly what drivers are supposed to do when playing with their electronic devices , namely being pulled over to the side of the road and out of the way of traffic instead of driving along texting like every second driver seems to be doing these days . It is my understanding that he was pulled over out of all of the regular traffic lanes , yes ? I can't really fault him for being where he was because he was following accepted protocol in being pulled over , I'd sure rather ALL folks using their GPS & phones & blueteeth would do that rather than being so distracted while driving . Being pulled over for any reason really isn't justification for the implication that the gent was somehow responsible for being hit by the plane ......

Hydro Junkie

Actually, it is. A shoulder is for EMERGENCY PARKING only. This means mechanical issues, flat tires, lack of fuel, etc. Playing with a Bluetooth device IS NOT AN EMERGENCY. Disagree if you wish but, if you look at New York State, they have installed TEXTING STOPS, basically rest areas with nothing but a paved area off the road just for texting, talking on the phone or any other technology usage. State law in New York states that if you are pulled over for violating their driving tech law, it's a fine the first time, suspended license the second, revoked license the third. It does not specify using the shoulders is legal for tech use. This is something I wish the rest of the states would implement as it would cut down on the amount of accidents due to inattentive driving. Too bad the auto makers are helping make tech easier to use in the car. I guess they like the idea of crashes since it means more cars are sold to replace the ones wrecked

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Retired ATP here, as in Airline Transport Pilot ! With over 13,000 hours free of accident or incident flight. Don't talk to me about safety, unless your as well qualified !!!

init4fun

So tell me , how much training DO you have with regards to these emergency chutes for small GA aircraft ?

And really , pulling rank , are we ?

I'll put my A&P, as in Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic's rating , training against your seat time any day , pal , so you can now take your high & mighty act elsewhere .

Sport_Pilot

I don't think knowing about safely piloting an airliner, even as well qualified as you, says much about knowing the safety of small GA planes. Probably a lot but I would think an engineer doing crash tests on small planes or other safety concerns on small planes would know a lot more.

init4fun

And yea pooba , you've got the arrogant superiority complex I saw in many of the push button pilots who somehow always seem to think they know more about the aircraft than those who actually BUILD and MAINTAIN them . So typical ....


Any other "experts" wanna get mouthy here ?

Edited to add ,

Ain't this typical of how any thread here discussing safety goes . First I get one guy telling me the subject is off limits cause someone died , and then I get another pulling rank as though his commercial seat time somehow qualifies himself above all others to entertain a discussion of safety in GA craft , "He's flown JETS !!!, so no one knows more than he does !!!" , , , right pooba ? Gee , hope an astronaut don't happen by , guess he'll be able to pull rank on you , huh ? Sorry friend , no one here is any more qualified to participate in the discussion than anyone else is , especially when you have no idea of the qualifications of the folks your trying to pull your superiority crap over . Some of us are also from full scale aviation backgrounds and at least two of us right here in this very thread think that the chutes are a good thing wherever practical for small GA aircraft to be equipped with .

Sorry you disagree with something that so obviously could save lives , but that's training for ya , i guess .....

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

No, nobody else has to get mouthy here !

And I do have a great respect for MOST A&P's, as my experience does go back many years. Actually back to USAF days, keeping B'52's in the air.
Can not for the hell of me, remember seeing any safety chutes on them. Except for the one that was deployed from the tail. LOL

I'm done here fellows. Good luck with you GA chat.

P.S. Will add one last thought, that a chute most likely would have saved the occupants in the GA aircraft that crashed. But, then again, it may very well have crushed the occupants in the vehicle as it landed on them or somebody else.

init4fun

Now see , after you calmed down and stopped trying to pull rank , you did end up coming to the same conclusion I did way back in post #10 . You just must have missed that in your rush to skewer me for suggesting that an emergency chute may have or may not have changed the outcome here . I do not expect in my lifetime such technology to be perfected to the jetliner or B52 sized craft , but where it is available today for the little puddle jumpers that are most likely to need it in the first place I think it would be a long overdue proper safety measure to require it's presence on the small GA craft .

Sport_Pilot

Here is some interesting analysis of statistics from 2004.

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flyin...vsdriving.html

So why are they concentrating on model airplanes which have never caused a fatality in even a GA sized aircraft?

init4fun

Thank You Sport , a very interesting article indeed !

It has been my belief from the beginning of this FAA/model plane baloney that the FAA is poised to rake big bucks from the "drone revolution" and they don't want our "toys" getting in the way of their new moneymakers as they zip about the skies . The safety angle is nothing but a smokescreen , just like you say , exactly HOW many full scale deaths have happened from RC VS full scale collisions ? Exactly none ? And it's far more important to regulate us than mandate real safety enhancements , things like recovery chutes for the almost daily GA crashes ?

ira d

Good point.

Sport_Pilot

Here is an article which equates how many years it will be between drone midairs. Somewhere I said it will never happen, well I was almost right.

http://theconversation.com/are-drone...irplanes-56770