Is XM Wx Like a Parachute?

Ten years ago when Cirrus popularized the whole-airplane parachute recovery system on its SR20 single, there was a lot of controversy over whether such a chute was a good idea, with most of the strong opinion firmly in the "not a good idea" camp.

You didn't hear many complaints coming from the homebuilt side of aviation, as the Kitfox crowd had gotten used to flying with their BRS's and were generally convinced as a group that a chute made you safer and not less safe.

But many pilots who'd been flying certified airplanes for a long time felt differently. They felt emotionally that the chute was a "crutch." For the record, the term "crutch" is the same one I've heard over the decades to to describe autopilots, moving map GPS navigators and even nose wheels. So it doesn't hold any weight with me at all, other than to say the person who uses it is probably afraid of new things.

The most interesting argument I've heard against a whole-airplane chute is that it might inspire pilots to take more risks than they'd otherwise be comfortable with, thinking, the theory went, that if it didn't work out, they could simply pull the chute.

At least when it comes to me, the argument was and is right on the money. When I'm flying an airplane with a chute (my PlaneSmart SR22 G3 Turbo) I fly at night more often, I fly IFR over hostile terrain, and I will take off with slightly lower visibility than I otherwise might. Am I putting myself at more risk? That depends on how much you'd guess the chute might help if worse came to worse. It's probably less risk than in a non-chute-equipped airplane under the same conditions. It would be less risky, I'd agree, if I didn't fly at all.

And I got to thinking about XM Wx, another safety feature I've got in the Cirrus. Will I fly under conditions with it that I wouldn't without it? You bet your sweet bippy, I will. Because with it I can see pretty accurately where the thunderstorms are, so I can go where they ain't.

By my way of thinking, these safety devices don't expose me to more risk; they allow me to get more utility out of my airplane without increasing the risk. That's a pretty good testament to any new technology.

Comments

[Marco Gavazzi]

I am a former jet figther pilot (when I was young). Now I am 68 and fly a Marchetti SF260. I fly IFR by night, I fly IFR over hostile terrain, I often fly in IMC for even more then 2 hours. All that with analogic instrument and without an autopilot.
If I had a chute and XM Wx, surely I would feel much safer and will be much safer, but thanks to the training that I enjoied many years ago in the AIR FORCES...

Marco Gavazzi

[Lee Eshelman]

I think the small piston guys would get more utilization out of their airplanes with onboard WX displays when used for navigating long trips. Without WX you can check the radar on your computer or TV, and make the basic go/no-go decision. And if it looks flyable and you launch you can contact Flight Watch (some times) enroute and try to form a picture of the weather that lies ahead, but it is anything but complete. With WX you can see the big picture and make an informed decision about whether to proceed or not. I don't see the risk level increasing here, unless you "push the system" and try to thread around/between close together cells. In fact, if the weather deteriorates rapidly, knowing this would probably lower the risk.

[Bill D.]

Seems to me that the risk level on any given flight is not a level statistic, but rather a constantly varying line of probability. While advances in avionics may reduce the risk in many situations, the parachute improves the odds in the event you make an error in judgement about how much cabability you really have.

[Eric Basile]

Robert,

I'm not sure I agree. There is a fair bit of scientific research to suggest that individuals seek a "risk homeostasis" where they adjust their tolerance for risk depending on the level(s) of safety protection they have available. This is the case not just in aviation but also in many non-aviation related activities.

The full-airplane parachute is great, but we know full well that there is an operational envelope required for its successful deployment. As we've seen with several accidents now, deployment of the chute in a high-speed situation (such as might be the case with a VFR-into-IMC loss of control) can be completely useless. Here's a case where having the chute on board might erroneously lead a pilot to take on a higher level of risk (flying into poorer weather) - but when it comes time to deploy it, the chute does nothing to lower the risk of death or injury.

[Neil Archer]

I have flown aircraft without any storm detection and aircraft with storm detection. I currently fly a Bonanza with XM weather. In my 50 years of flying and 45 years with an instrument ticket it is in many ways better than on board radar. When coupled to a good GPS it will keep you out of a lot of weather and make a long cross country with mixed weather a lot easier.

Neil Archer

[tofflinsmayer]

As I consider downgrading from a light twin to a single(fuel costs and lack utilization of all the seats), the chute appears to be an important safty item.Without the 2nd eng./ chute the plan to fly at night or over rough terrain would be greatly reduced.
On board wx.does bait a pilot fwd into bad wx., however he can"see" as to where safe onward is or, nope, it is time to turn around and land. That assumes the pilot is capable of good judgement.

[stuart]

GPS, XM weather, parachutes, etc. increases the capability to tackle weather conditions that one might otherwise avoid but I don't believe that fact alone increases the risks. Safety will always depend upon the pilot's honest evaluation of his own capability before launching on any flight.

A Cessna 210 with all the bells and whistles is not going to be able to tackle the same flight conditions as a coporate jet with steam gages.

[Steve Phoenix]

Robert,
You state a case but without the analysis I'm used to seeing from Richard Collins. Do you feel safer with your 70 lb parachute when you are taking off on a hot day over the trees? What, statisically, are the odds of being involved in a departure accident due to lack of climb versus an accident where the parachute might actually be of use? If you feel safer flying at night/IFR over hostile terrain, does the parachute reduce the possibility of a CFIT? If not, what is the probibility of that happening versus a situation where the parachute might be used? I think good analysis might reveal more than the emotional appeal does.

[Stuart Robb]

Comment by stuart on the 28th may is the most relavant. that takes in the whole picture and should promote careful assesment by others. No one seems to have mentioned that XM is not real time it can be up to 10 minutes behind what is happening outside the cockpit. A lot can happen to a doclie looking CB in 10 minutes!
Another Stuart, Forbes

[Peter T]

I don't agree that XM Wx lowers our risk threshold, at least not for a rational pilot. I will still give cells a very wide berth, but at least I know which way to deviate safely.

The one technology that does have me worried about drawing pilots into areas they should not be is all this artificial vision stuff: that is really calling for trouble. I predict that accident rates will increase dramatically over the next few years as pilots start flying into terrain they shouldn't be in because "they can see it on the screen". I don't argue that SVS has it's place in an F-16, a 747, or even a G5, but not in our GA planes. Until now I have felt that avionics technology development has been truly driven by increasing safety and benefit for its users, but I fear that the time has come when the marketing guys have taken over, and are driving the development folks to make things that are unnecessary and unsound, just to sell more devices.