As one VP of an insurer of a large number of Cirrus aircraft, “Pull the CAPS handle. We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate.”
That’s a very warm public position but financially it is an empty statement because the pilot and his estate don’t get a payout if he kills himself! And since almost nobody crashes (as a % of the market) the shrinkage of the market as a result of crashes is miniscule, so the insurer has no real financial incentive to keep the customer alive. Also a large % of pilots give up flying permanently after a major incident which they survived (I know quite a few cases – they tend to lose their passengers anyway; their family especially prob90 won’t fly with them again) so their insurance premiums are lost. And 3rd party casualties/damage in GA are exceedingly rare. So it comes down to passenger liability, and the (usually much smaller) payout of the aircraft market value.
Your characterization of insurance payouts differs greatly from my information about how the system works in the USA.
That VP of insurance pays out for the loss of the the airplane in both fatal accidents and non-fatal accidents. The hull value is what is typically insured. The insurer is obligated to defend the insured from lawsuits, even when they die, and it is quite common for the estate to file for wrongful death and loss of income, etc.
Roughly, US aviation insurers pay out 1/3 of losses for repairs of damaged aircraft, for replacement of aircraft totally damaged, and for litigation expenses. Having everyone survive a Cirrus accident due to the use of the parachute reduces the litigation expenses and provides the financial basis for the warm public position you noted.
Cheers
Rick
But I am still wondering why that advice is given so explicitly regarding the Cirrus, and so rarely regarding the other types. Yes, the Cirrus training program has reduced the accident rate.
Here are a couple of my thoughts on why . . .
First, Cirrus Aircraft intended their innovative airplane to promote safety — the wing cuff and parachute being two important examples, but there are many, many others. “Safety is not an option” was in internal company phrase during engineering design.
Second, a very large proportion of accident investigations lay the cause at the feet of pilots. Recently, 77% of NTSB investigations had probable causes related to pilot actions or inactions. That means that innovative airplane features were only part of the solution.
Third, Cirrus was new, and unlike other manufacturers, did not have an established network of training centers, instructors and step-up airplanes, such as the Cessna and Piper. Hence, an investment in building that infrastructure seemed necessary.
Fourth, Cirrus expanded the target market for pilots, many of whom came back to flying after years of layoff, and many of whom had the desire for personal air transportation.
Fifth, those experienced pilots but with low time-in-type did all of the dumb things that get pilots into trouble in the past, but with a new make/model aircraft, giving the Cirrus a big challenge to realize the safety benefits being thwarted by pilots who didn’t know what they didn’t know.
Sixth, the owner and pilot community really didn’t like the misinformation and outright hostility in aviation forums, so took on gathering and disseminating factual information and improved training materials.
Result? While the fleet continues to grow at about 5% per year over 6,000 airplanes produced, the fatal accident rate has dropped over the past four years to just 3 fatal Cirrus accidents in 2014. See this web article on Cirrus accident rates: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/721.cirrus-accident-rates.aspx
Cheers
Rick
Just to come back to huv’s question.
Here’s one reference, right from the UK CAA:
AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION CIRCULAR
National Air Traffic Services Ltd
Aeronautical Information Service
Control Tower Building, London Heathrow Airport
Hounslow, Middlesex TW6 1JJ
Editorial: 020-8745 3457
Distribution: 0870-8871410 (Tangent Marketing Services Limited) Content: 01293-573700 (PLD)
Website: www.ais.org.uk
/>
AIC 31/2006 (Pink 98)
2 March
DIFFERENCES TRAINING IN SINGLE PILOT PISTON ENGINED AEROPLANES WITH SINGLE POWER LEVER CONTROLS (SPLC AEROPLANES)
1 Introduction
1.1 The advance of new technology has brought some significant changes to single pilot aircraft. Some piston engine aeroplanes are now fitted with a single lever, automated power control, that combines electronically all the control functions of an engine and propeller – sometimes known as Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) – including control of turbochargers, superchargers and auto-feather systems where fitted. These new systems require additional knowledge and skill from the pilot. For the purposes of this Circular, these aircraft will be referred to as Aeroplanes with Single Power Lever Controls (SPLC Aeroplanes).
[…]
Anyway, no references required really. The Cirrus is far away from being “single-lever”. The only thing it has is a very basic mechanical linkage between the throttle and the prop governor. The mixture is still there.
Thanks Bosco. Although not legally binding (not outside UK in any case), it makes good sense. There is nothing specific in EASA Part-FCL about when and how to perform difference trainings, so I usually lend to the UK in that respect – used to be LASOR, now CAP804. The AIC text you quote has not made it into the LASOR/CAP804, however, but FADEC is mentioned in the SLPC section.
In my case I just obeyed words from my own CAA. May be they did not really understand the Cirrus at the time.
