R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by pietromarx »

This may be of interest to Diamond folks: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-r ... licopters/

The DA-40 apparently has an accident rate of around 0.35/100,000 hours flown.

The R44 (in the story) has a rate of around 1.6/100k hours flown.

Perhaps closer to our aircraft, the various Cirrii have accident rates that are higher than the GA average. These have come down in recent years to around the same as the GA average overall (around 3x the DA-40 rate).

If you have tried to insure a Diamond, Cirrus, and Robinson then you know exactly what the insurers think.

It is fascinating to me to see the difference between a culture focused on safety (as Diamond clearly is) and one focused on sharing the blame. While we may have gripes about Diamond, there is no question that their products have proven to be quite safe. Modern design methodologies should result in extremely low crash rates. There really is no argument with this -- we see large airplanes running around at 550MPH all over the world with the best safety record in transportation while more banal transportation modalities (walking, flying a GA plane, and, especially, driving) are more dangerous. It is a matter of safety / non-safety culture vs. design and tech.

Robinson has a mast-bumping design where the aircraft can disintegrate in non-G environments (turbulence, etc.). The fuel tanks have been implicated in multiple fatalities. These are inherently bad designs IMHO in that we should be able to remove these variables in this day and age. Instead, they blame the pilots. I've never heard of a drone having a mast-bumping issue ... :) The fuel tank issue isn't present in other designs. Robinson tried to design the fuel tank design away ... by requiring pilots and passengers to wear NOMEX suits. Imagine doing that on a hot day while assuring yourself and your loved ones that the aircraft you're getting into is safe.

The Cirrus famously avoided having to do spin-testing as they were install an airframe parachute. This has had an interesting effect: accidents where the CAPS was pulled are often less fatal than crashes where CAPS wasn't used. Does this mean that the plane is safer (has CAPS) or less safe (more fatal in its basic non-CAPS design)? See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28539144. Interesting, for a modern aircraft, success is that the recent accident rate is around the same as GA overall with ancient aircraft for comparison. See https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safet ... rates.aspx.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts.
User avatar
Lou
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:39 pm
First Name: Louis
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: CGXLO
Airports: CZVL
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Lou »

When I decided to take up flying 4 years ago, I had never even heard about Diamond's. I decided that safety was the most important factor in deciding to buy an airplane. After reading dozens of GA accident reports I concluded that the most important safety variables were 1 weather, 2 stall/spin resistance, 3 and engine reliability (in particular fuel injection). That is the research path that brought me to Diamond, and (aside from the indifferent customer support which frustrates us all) I am very happy with my decision.

The CAPs argument still does not make sense to me. I have been flying model airplanes all my life and one thing that amazes me still is how on one hand it is possible to design a plane that is stable, safe and hard to upset, while on the other you can make a plane with such vicious stall charcateristics that it's gone in an instant. I once made a little .25 powered Spitfire with a flat bottom wing with no washout. It flew very well until I slowed it down to land - the tip stall was sudden, severe and unrecoverable - it was like one wing fell off. Yet I have also built a fast and maneuverable aircraft with very gentle upset chracteristics.

For me, behavior around the stall is the most important safety characteristic of any airplane. Engine failures and the common base to final turn crash both engage that chracteristic. I tell my passengers that they are flying in the safest airplane in the GA fleet. They always ask, does it have a parachute? I always say no because it does not behave in such a fashion so as to need one, and that's the safest airplane of all. When additional passive measures are considered (impact resistance and fuel system protection) it's clear to see why Diamonds are the best.

And I also don't think there is a significant skill difference in the pilot population between Cirrus drivers and the rest of us. That audio of the poor woman who crashed her SR-20 after a few failed approaches in Texas is a sad thing. I think the airplane performance was a factor and when she lost airspeed the stall/spin was sudden and severe. A Diamond would have been easier to land in the first place, and more forgiving of low airspeed in the second.

My two bits.
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by pietromarx »

Lou wrote:For me, behavior around the stall is the most important safety characteristic of any airplane. Engine failures and the common base to final turn crash both engage that characteristic. I tell my passengers that they are flying in the safest airplane in the GA fleet. They always ask, does it have a parachute? I always say no because it does not behave in such a fashion so as to need one, and that's the safest airplane of all. When additional passive measures are considered (impact resistance and fuel system protection) it's clear to see why Diamonds are the best.
Exactly.
Lou wrote:And I also don't think there is a significant skill difference in the pilot population between Cirrus drivers and the rest of us. That audio of the poor woman who crashed her SR-20 after a few failed approaches in Texas is a sad thing. I think the airplane performance was a factor and when she lost airspeed the stall/spin was sudden and severe. A Diamond would have been easier to land in the first place, and more forgiving of low airspeed in the second.
Exactly -- and heartbreaking. The same is true with the R44s / R22s.

The design let the humans down.
User avatar
Derek
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:07 am
First Name: Derek
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: CGPDN
Airports: CYTZ
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Derek »

I agree with you guys 100%. It’s so disappointing that GA fatalities are as high as they are and except for Diamond, really not improving. Think about it: if you fly 10,000 hrs in your GA life you have a 16% chance of dying if you own an R44/R22, a 10% chance of death if you own a Cirrus, and a still somewhat scary 3.5% chance in a Diamond. Diamond has done an incredible job at lowering risk for people like us and they should be hugely rewarded with market share. Based on stats, Diamond should logically be the number one choice by a country mile. Somehow people just don’t want to think that it can happen to them. How else do you explain a 3x’s higher risk of DEATH in a cirrus yet it’s a better seller.
User avatar
Keith M
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:54 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Airports: EGNH
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Keith M »

I have no complaints about the primary safety characteristics of my DA40D, but the issue of off-field landings has to be considered. When I chose it over an SR20, I asked for AmSafe seatbelts to be fitted, but was informed they were not available for that model. This concerned me, as 3-point seatbelts are not very good at keeping your head from hitting the instrument panel, but not enough to put me off buying it. The SR2x range of aircraft have both Amsafe and 4-point seatbelts, so their secondary safety is better, but you could argue that it needs to be. However, given the choice of touching down at nearly 80 mph on unknown terrain or pulling the CAPS handle, I'd like the option to do the latter. The case for having that choice is even greater with the DA40NG, which has a stall speed 11% higher and an extra 80lbs of metal in front of you. With that in mind, I can understand why the Cirrus safety sales pitch is so effective.
User avatar
Keith M
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:54 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Airports: EGNH
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Keith M »

Correction: touchdown speed in a DA40 is, of course, nearly 60mph, not 80!
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by pietromarx »

Keith M wrote:I have no complaints about the primary safety characteristics of my DA40D, but the issue of off-field landings has to be considered. When I chose it over an SR20, I asked for AmSafe seatbelts to be fitted, but was informed they were not available for that model. This concerned me, as 3-point seatbelts are not very good at keeping your head from hitting the instrument panel, but not enough to put me off buying it. The SR2x range of aircraft have both Amsafe and 4-point seatbelts, so their secondary safety is better, but you could argue that it needs to be. However, given the choice of touching down at nearly 80 mph on unknown terrain or pulling the CAPS handle, I'd like the option to do the latter. The case for having that choice is even greater with the DA40NG, which has a stall speed 11% higher and an extra 80lbs of metal in front of you. With that in mind, I can understand why the Cirrus safety sales pitch is so effective.
Off-field landings are definitely a consideration, especially for me personally as I live in the mountainous West. I've thought a lot about where I would land in different circumstances, sometimes without any solution other than not to go in the first place (night + weather + mountains = don't go). Flying gliders helped a lot, though they all have five-point harnesses (and often parachutes for the individuals). I would take a harness over an airbag and would take both any day.

The parachute's benefits and liabilities have been long-discussed. Pull the handle and you're a passenger. This has helped in flat lands, but not so great in terrain. I'm not sure it would change my equation: does the equation (parachute + weather + night + mountains = go)?

The DA-40s falling leaf is pretty good. A forward speed of ~40 KIAS and a vertical speed less than the CAPS. Again, though, it is a pretty passive approach. Would only consider doing it when I cannot see the terrain (or don't want to) and have boxed myself in. This certainly does not change the equation.

At the end of the day it comes down to prioritization on safety. I have seen lots of people walk away from off-field landings when they have had some say on the circumstances. One guy had an canopy opening on take-off (in a DA20) and landed on a berm. Another engine failure on take-off in a C172 resulted in a landing on a dirt road. Another engine failure on take-off in a YAK resulted in going into the trees. Two had no injuries, one had a wrenched back (in the DA20), and in all cases, the plane was flying within hours or days. The reason: they took off during the day and had escape plans.

Both Cirrus and Diamond have safety in mind. I personally think they could do a lot more. Even Diamond, as you mention, has a haphazard approach and they're probably the best. The Robinson folks are a good example of one of the worst or perhaps an example of times past.

I have a $2m policy on the DA40 that costs me less than my auto insurance in SoCal. Says something about both SoCal and the DA40, no?
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
First Name: Andrew
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N897KC
Airports:
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by AndrewM »

Let's hope the new DA50 range maintains the various safety handling and hallmarks we all admire so much with our Diamonds...
User avatar
Lou
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:39 pm
First Name: Louis
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: CGXLO
Airports: CZVL
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Lou »

Derek, I can't entirely agree with your blanket approach to calculating risks. When you look at the overall stats, the thing that really impresses is how much individuals can reduce their risk exposure. Careful weather briefing, fuel management and watching your airspeed eliminates a huge proportion of the risk. The difference in GA and commercial aviation risk is almost entirely due to training, not equipment. Most days I have less anxiety flying than driving on a busy highway. ATV's and horses are more dangerous I read somewhere. Our Diamond aircraft give us a bit larger margin of error, and that's a good thing, but the guy (or gal) at the stick is still the most dangerous piece of equipment in the airplane.
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by pietromarx »

I think there is an interesting segmentation in aircraft purchasers. Those choosing Diamond would appear to be innovation and technology driven. Those choosing Cirrus, for example, may be more speed and comfort driven. The old saying of fit the aircraft to the mission, etc. I rarely had a conversation about safety or performance with regards to Decathlons, for example ... :)

Take a look at how Diamond sells these days and you'll see it is basically innovation and safety. They have an enviable record of working on autonomy, alternative fuels / energy, etc. Long sections on innovation: https://www.diamondaircraft.com/about-d ... nnovation/ ... and safety: https://www.diamondaircraft.com/about-diamond/safety

By comparison there is discussion on Cirrus of safety and innovation, but it basically all boils down to CAPS, composite, and G1000. They really sell on comfort and performance first.

Robinson sells ... helicopters. Little mention of performance or safety.
Post Reply