Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

[Dan Luke]

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1840777

(link at top of page)

[Ron Lee]

The beginning of the article is perhaps erroneous. It alludes to
inflight "emergencies." My knowledge of the facts in these two
incidents is inadequate to properly evaluate them. However, I have
read things that bring up probing questions.

The incident that occurred over mountains was the first. I live just
east of Pikes Peak (Rockies) and for almost 16 years they have been a
barrier. I had neither the training nor the proper aircraft to "Go
West young man." Last year I took a mountain flying course to handle
the training part (RV-6A takes care of the plane). One thing they
stress is do not fly over mountains at night and yet the Cirrus pilot
reportedly did.

The other noteworthy report about this incident (again if factually
reported) is that he encountered severe turbulence. Was turbulence
forecast or to be expected? I check winds aloft forecasts and cancel
mountain excursions if beyond my comfort level. Could he not execute
a 180 degree turn and get to calmer air?

The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
safely land mere minutes after take-off?

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

Ron Lee

[ArtP]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:45:36 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


>The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
>where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
>instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
>obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
>that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
>safely land mere minutes after take-off?

The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

[C J Campbell]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:45:36 GMT, (Ron Lee)
> wrote:
>
>
> >The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
> >where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
> >instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
> >obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
> >that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
> >safely land mere minutes after take-off?
>
> The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
> parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
> only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
> you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably
survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They
can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually
failed or not.

I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even
instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds.

[Ron Lee]

ArtP > wrote:
>
>The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
>parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
>only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
>you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

You are right. I would have significant problems with no instruments.
But then I am not instrument rated and I avoid IMC conditions. My
only experience with IMC was with an instructor in the right seat.
Even with instruments, my ears were telling me bad things compared to
the instruments.

But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?

Ron Lee

[ArtP]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:33:41 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


>But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
>instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?
>

Over the years COPA has had move than a few posts of pilots have
instrument failures. Sometimes multiple failures. The multiple
failures were all in VFR conditions so the pilots could report the
problem. One had multiple instrument failures combined with a
parachute failure but that pilot was able to land in a field after
broke out near the ground (Lexington, Ky.). Anytime a plane has a
large number of individual component failures eventually some will
happen together and sooner or later they will happen in the worst
possible conditions.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
>

Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been
offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't
make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics.

What in the world have you been smoking?

Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA
accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously
incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
> instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?
>

Jeeze! "His statement" is as much guesswork as is everybodys with
regard to these accident. That's what accident *investigations* are
for!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Lee]

First off Thomas...I smoke nothing. Nor do I consume any mind altering
substances. Frankly, I cannot see your point of view. Instead of
doing something to keep pilots from making idiotic judgements, you
prefer a crutch (CAPS in this case).

I am able to make judgement calls about when to fly and not fly. I
can divert when weather dictates. If the ultimate facts in these two
events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address
that instead of relying on crutches.

If your goal is to prevent deaths, CAPS is not likely to be in a
significant number of aircraft so you have to find a way to fix the
pilot element for the non-CAPS equipped aircraft.

Fact of life though...people screw up and people die. At some point
Darwinism takes over

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Ron,
>
>> know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
>> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
>>
>
>Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been
>offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't
>make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics.
>
>What in the world have you been smoking?
>
>Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA
>accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously
>incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Rick Durden]

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go
back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
'20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
the mail parachutes). (Don't forget that Lindbergh jumped from his
mail plane three times during his air mail career...thank goodness.)

Fortunately, logic prevailed and military and mail pilots got to wear
chutes, as did test pilots. It did take some very severely worded
orders and actions to get the pilots to use them, as the macho problem
kept cropping up...if a pilot jumped, the Monday-morning quarterbacks
and macho meatheads would promptly criticize the guy for relying on a
crutch, the parachute, instead of dying like a man.

Thank goodness that crap died out as the military was absolutely
insistent that a pilot bail out when things did not make sense and he
couldn't make them make sense.

Now technology has progressed to the point that we can have a
whole-airplane parachute. Of course, it brings out the boneheads who
are critical of those who live because they got to the point that they
decided that they could not successfully continue the flight. Maybe,
if every pilot who is rewarded by living because he had the guts to
use the chute, knowing that half-wits would criticize him could be
allowed to select one of the loudmouths for capital punishment...to
die in his place, as it were....

Don't forget there is one Cirrus accident in which the aircraft spun
in. It had two pilots aboard and apparently neither activated the
chute. (It appears the rocket cooked off in the post crash fire and
deployed the chute.) Can't you just see the discussion going on as
one pilot wants to pull the handle and the other insists that he not
do so because they will be the subject of criticism?

Yep, if you want to follow the "it's better to be dead than
embarassed" rule of aviation, press on. However, I kind of like
technology, it's what allows us to rise off the ground in the first
place, so we might as well have, and use, the safety technology as
well.

BTW, as you may know, in early World War I, many British troops were
not allowed to wear helmets in combat...it was considered cowardice in
the face of the enemy. Thank goodness that line of thinking doesn't
always prevail. When I teach aerobatics I tell my students that if
the airplane is doing something you don't recognize and you cannot
make it do something you do recognize by the time you get down to the
altitude selected prior to flight, quit screwing around and jump out.
If I get into that sort of situation in an airplane with a CAPS, I'll
use it because I do NOT know what is wrong, cannot correct it and
don't have time to trouble shoot it, whether or not I was the cause of
it, my obligation to do my best to save my passengers and myself.
I'll pull the handle.

All the best,
Rick

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> First off Thomas...I smoke nothing. Nor do I consume any mind altering
> substances. Frankly, I cannot see your point of view. Instead of
> doing something to keep pilots from making idiotic judgements, you
> prefer a crutch (CAPS in this case).
>
> I am able to make judgement calls about when to fly and not fly. I
> can divert when weather dictates. If the ultimate facts in these two
> events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address
> that instead of relying on crutches.
>
> If your goal is to prevent deaths, CAPS is not likely to be in a
> significant number of aircraft so you have to find a way to fix the
> pilot element for the non-CAPS equipped aircraft.
>
> Fact of life though...people screw up and people die. At some point
> Darwinism takes over
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> >Ron,
> >
> >> know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
> >> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been
> >offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't
> >make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics.
> >
> >What in the world have you been smoking?
> >
> >Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA
> >accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously
> >incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out
> >
> >--
> >Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >

[EDR]

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> > >The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
> > >where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
> > >instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
> > >obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
> > >that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
> > >safely land mere minutes after take-off?

> > The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
> > parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
> > only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
> > you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

> One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably
> survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They
> can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually
> failed or not.
> I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even
> instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds.

What ever happened to "needle, ball, airspeed"?
Pilot's lose their gyros and claim instrument failure. If you practice
partial panel, you can get the airplane down safely.

[Ron Lee]

(Rick Durden) wrote:

>Ron,
>
>It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

Ron Lee

[StellaStar]

Ron Lee wrote:
>If the ultimate facts in these two
>> events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address
>> that instead of relying on crutches.

Sorry, I'm with Durden on this one. To insist some pilots pulled their chutes
for reasons that were maybe, possibly, seems like, could-have-been not good
enough is your own point of view. You weren't there and don't know what the
situation was. To use your opinion to argue they shouldn't have had the chute
option is a cruel and inflexible point of view.

Some people like to go farther out on a limb than others, some feel perfectly
safe with few emergency options, and others go over their checklist three
times, always use that damn shoulder belt, and would pull the chute if they
feel like they're losing it.
The pilots in a couple Cirrus planes used a safety measure and survived the
situation. It may turn out, or we may never know, that they might not have died
without the option of using it.

Some people die of bad judgement. More all the time don't. Get right to work
on making us a goof-proof species if you can, but don't try to claim that
forgoing safety options on other people's behalf will make them safer.

[EDR]

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?
In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
the aircraft coordinated in turns?
Rick has written about the failure of instructors to teach students
how/when/where to scud run. That's a survival skill. Just think what
else the instructors aren't teaching that the student needs to know
before they go out on their own.
Maybe this is an indicator of the failure of the designated examiner
system. You pay your money, you get your ticket... regardless!
Deja Vu all over again.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>
>>It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>>approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>
>Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.
>
>To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
>mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
>two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
>series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
>on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
>parachute.

You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
were somehow defective.

If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
rest of us) of what was actually happening.

Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
overcome then.
>
>I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
>compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
>well.
>
I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Richard Kaplan]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...

> only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
> you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD
Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely
that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was
in contact with the controller by radio.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:37:27 +0000, Michael Houghton wrote:

> Howdy!
>
> In article >,
> Ron Lee > wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:
>>
>>>Ron,
>>>
>>>It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>>>approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>>
>>Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>>am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>>be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>
> It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
> do so.
>
> You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
> the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
> You harp on the pilot's culpability.
>>
>>To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
>>mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
>>two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
>>series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
>>on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
>>parachute.
>
> You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
> had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
> were somehow defective.
>
> If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
> you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
> to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
> choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
> rest of us) of what was actually happening.
>
> Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
> military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
> overcome then.
>>
>>I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
>>compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
>>well.
>>
> I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
> the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
> the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.
>
> yours,
> Michael

Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

[Ron Lee]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
>Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
>saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
>still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
>would you rather use? A chute or ego?
>
>I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
>later. I'm with ya Michael!

I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
safe" planes without that system?

Ron Lee

[Dean Wilkinson]

Hi Ron,

A question for you:

How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
general aviation accidents?

A second question:

If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
afterwards about the circumstances of their accident? Did you assign
any blame to them? Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Your attitude on this subject indicates to me that your answer to
question number 1 will be zero, but if not, I would be interested in
hearing your answer to question number 2.

Dean

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> (Rick Durden) wrote:
>
> >Ron,
> >
> >It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
> >approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>
> Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
> am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
> be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>
> To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
> mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
> two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
> series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
> on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
> parachute.
>
> I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
> compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
> well.
>
> Ron Lee

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
>
> How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
> general aviation accidents?

I'm not Ron, but this is usenet. I've known one.

> If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
> afterwards about the circumstances of their accident?

He was an experienced Bonanza pilot. He stalled a canard design with which he was
unfamiliar and tried to recover as if it were a Bonnie. That led to a secondary stall
at too low an altitude.

> Did you assign any blame to them?

A little.

> Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Maybe - do they work at 600' AGL? Familiarity training would have done the trick. If
he hadn't had a gear problem and elected to return to the field on his ferry flight
home, he also might have had a opportunity to get the experience he needed.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
> >Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
> >saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
> >still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
> >would you rather use? A chute or ego?
> >
> >I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
> >later. I'm with ya Michael!
>
> I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
> be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
> safe" planes without that system?
>
> Ron Lee

At this point in time the Cirrus is the less safe plane.

[Captain Wubba]

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
> >Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
> >saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
> >still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
> >would you rather use? A chute or ego?
> >
> >I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
> >later. I'm with ya Michael!
>
> I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
> be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
> safe" planes without that system?
>
> Ron Lee

Well, I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have an engine failure.
I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have a vacuum failure in nasty
hard IMC. I'd *rather* be the pilot who never got a bad vector into a
thunderstorm cell. Let me know when you can guarantee that these
things won't happen to me (or you), OK?

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I
*can* guarantee...buy flying a plane with a BRS chute. That is all
this is - an option. You think a pilot is going to pop a chute on a
$200,000 airframe and turn it into nifty piece of non-flying
avante-garde artwork because he wants to see what the ride down feels
like?

This is no more a 'crutch' than GPS is a crutch. Should we go back to
four-course radio ranges, because these 'new-fangled' VORs encourage
pilots to rely on them, and not maintain the skills that they had 'way
back then'?

Flying is *all* about risk management. To accomplish virtually
anything, one must take certain risks, and smart pilots judge those
risks based on the availability of options to deal with the problems
they might bring. I know some very good pilots who will not fly
single-engine at night in hard IMC. Their call...they understand the
risks, and they are the ones putting their butts on the line. That
might change now if they can fly a Cirrus, because they would have one
more, final option in case things get *really* bad. Would they want to
pull the chute? Obviously not...nor would they want a forced landing
off field...but they would take *either* if the other choice is a nice
headstone with their name on it somewhere.

Yes, I'll continue flying Cessnas. But if I have my choice between
flying a plane that has a chute and one that doesn't, all else being
equal, of *course* I'd choose the plane with the chute. Who wouldn't?
Would you go to a restaurant with 5 things on the menu, instead of an
identical place that had 20, just because you *might* choose not to
eat any of the other choices?

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the
risk-management portfolio of the wise pilot...an option to save lives
when all the other options are gone. As such, it is a great benefit to
the aviation community, and I can only hope that it becomes increasing
common.

Cheers,

Cap

[Richard Kaplan]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...

> But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
> the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I


The issue is not one of pulling the chute with an engine failure over
hostile terrain or structural failure -- no one is likely to question those.

I do, however, think there is a very reasonable question re: whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure. Using a parachute in those situations is overkill
which needlessly damages the airplane and frankly can put a pilot and those
on the ground at risk because he cannot select the landing site.

All IFR pilots should fly with a battery GPS and should also regularly
practice partial panel. A backup electric AI is also an excellent idea
which is far less expensive than a parachute.

Any IFR pilot flying an airplane with a battery GPS, vacuum AI, and backup
electric AI should be able to handle an instrument or electrical or vacuum
failure to a safe IMC landing without resorting to pulling the parachute.

Even if a parachute IS in an airplane under the above circumstances with the
above backup equipment, there is no reason to pull the parachute -- it is
safer and more prudent to just fly an emergency approach using the backup
GPS.

A battery GPS and an electric AI also cost MUCH, MUCH less than a parachute.

> There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
> that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the


Actually, whether the BRS system has saved lives YET is very much a valid
point to debate. None of the incidents so far where the BRS was pulled was
clearly an unrecoverable situation without a parachute.

However, I do agree that there are indeed some situations where the BRS
system could save lives -- the most relevant situation would be an in-flight
breakup. Another situation would be engine failure at night or over hostile
terrain. However, statistics show year after year that these situations
are extremely rare.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Captain,

good post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

> whether the
> parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
> electrical failure.
>

I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
effect, you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
> with Lee.
> I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
> country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
> The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
> ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
> taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.

> In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
> the aircraft coordinated in turns?

Actually, I have not seen uncoordinated flight to be a serious problem in
either my students or in the students of other instructors. I don't know
where people keep getting this as not being covered in flight instruction.

> Rick has written about the failure of instructors to teach students
> how/when/where to scud run. That's a survival skill. Just think what
> else the instructors aren't teaching that the student needs to know
> before they go out on their own.

Since instructors do not control the weather, scud running as a survival
skill is not always available. Everybody has their own ideas of things to
add to the training syllabus. I have plenty of my own. It seems harsh, but
training is market driven. If training becomes too expensive, no one will
get training at all. Basic flight training is just that -- an attempt to
teach the minimal skills needed to fly an airplane. No one likes it, but we
live with it because we know that no one will buy 1,000 hours to get a
private pilot certificate. It may be true that a pilot with a new
certificate is no more competent to fly than a new college graduate with a
business degree is competent to manage, but at least he has the foundation
needed to learn what he does need to know.

We seem to have a pretty good balance now. Accident rates are far lower than
they were back in the old days when all these gripers learned to fly.

All these people that keep criticizing the flight instructing structure need
to show how things could be done better instead of just saying that the
instructors aren't doing their job. One thing I have noticed is that those
who are the most critical of flight instruction are those most interested in
perpetuating their personal theories and hangar myths about how airplanes
should be flown (as in taxiing with the yoke full back).

Suggesting that the designated examiners are passing incompetent pilots is
just plain silly. The examiners test to the practical test standards.
Candidates either meet them or they don't. If you don't like the practical
test standards as written, you are free to submit suggestions for changes.

[C J Campbell]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> Ron,
>
> It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
> approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go
> back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
> out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
> were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
> '20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
> jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
> the mail parachutes).

If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that
every safety improvement is a bad thing.

If these guys had their way, cars would instead of airbags have a sharp
spear embedded in the steering column which would impale any driver who was
so careless as to get into an accident.

Their attitude seems to be that a small bomb should be installed in every
airplane so that anyone who is so thoughtless as to crash is guaranteed to
be scattered in small pieces over a wide area.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Last year I took a mountain flying course to handle
> the training part (RV-6A takes care of the plane). One thing they
> stress is do not fly over mountains at night and yet the Cirrus pilot
> reportedly did.

Your implication is that he should not have done that. If the CAPS system
gives you enough additional safety margin to make such a flight reasonable,
why not?

>
> The other noteworthy report about this incident (again if factually
> reported) is that he encountered severe turbulence. Was turbulence
> forecast or to be expected? I check winds aloft forecasts and cancel
> mountain excursions if beyond my comfort level. Could he not execute
> a 180 degree turn and get to calmer air?

If you took a mountain flying course, they should have taught you that the
weather in mountains is unpredictable.

>
> The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
> where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
> instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
> obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
> that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
> safely land mere minutes after take-off?

The pilot was instrument rated on an IFR flight plan, but it does not matter
whether the instruments failed or he became disoriented, or both. If he was
unable to fly "needle, ball, airspeed" (and it is a lot easier to do that in
training than when the instruments actually fail) and was unable to maintain
control of the aircraft for any reason, he should have deployed the chute.
The airplane was close to the ground and in IMC. I suspect that it was the
better part of valor to deploy the chute and figure out what went wrong
later.

In general, the CAPS system gives the pilot not only an additional safety
margin, but additional capability. This is true of all safety improvements.
They give you the option to do things safely that were maybe too dangerous
to do before. As with all new technologies, the limits of what CAPS can do
for us will be explored and a gradual consensus will be developed as to what
those limits are.

[ArtP]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:35:06 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>

>We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD
>Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely
>that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was
>in contact with the controller by radio.

Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum
system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all
electric. As far as knowing what happened, we do have the pilot's
statement and without out proof to the contrary, I see no reason to
doubt it.

[John Galban]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
> > with Lee.
> > I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
> > country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
> > The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
> > ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
> > taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?
>
> If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
> some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
> when taxiing, depending on wind direction.
>

That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only
"correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read
Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass
strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep
your prop off the ground.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Richard Kaplan]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...

> Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum
> system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all
> electric. As far as knowing what happened, we do have the pilot's
> statement and without out proof to the contrary, I see no reason to
> doubt it.

I thought this particular Cirrus had a vacuum system.. in any event, even
the all-electric Cirrus airplanes have a backup AI and the pilot was talking
to ATC so he did have electrical power remaining. It would thus seem that
an expedited ASR or PAR would have been an option.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
> is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
> containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
> effect, you do.

Where DO you draw the line at pulling the parachute "just to be safe" ?

How about lost com with nav still operational?

How about moderate turbulence?

How about a door that pops open.

Surely you will agree that there is SOME point at which a pilot should be
able to handle a situation without resorting to a parachute. If you do not
agree, then that attitude will push insurance costs on a Cirrus to the point
that the airplane is no longer insurable. If you do agree, then the
question shifts not to "if the PIC thinks it is, then it is" but rather to a
discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and
what situations are not appropriate.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...>

> If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that
> every safety improvement is a bad thing.


What pilot posted that every safety improvement is a bad thing? I do not
recall any such post.

The fact is that all airplane modifications have benefits and disadvantages
that need to be weighed against one another. It is not clear yet that the
Cirrus is either safer or more dangerous than traditional steam-gauge,
non-parachute airplanes. There are reasonable arguments on both side.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[C J Campbell]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > "EDR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
> > > with Lee.
> > > I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
> > > country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
> > > The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
> > > ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
> > > taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?
> >
> > If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
> > some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or
down
> > when taxiing, depending on wind direction.
> >
>
> That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only
> "correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read
> Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass
> strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep
> your prop off the ground.

I assumed he was talking about whenever he saw somebody taxiing. If he meant
some special case he should have said so.

[ArtP]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:25:00 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:


>I thought this particular Cirrus had a vacuum system.. in any event, even
>the all-electric Cirrus airplanes have a backup AI and the pilot was talking
>to ATC so he did have electrical power remaining. It would thus seem that
>an expedited ASR or PAR would have been an option.

That is assuming he had a working attitude instrument.

[Thomas Borchert]

ArtP,

> Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum
> system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all
> electric.
>

Oh, come on! They went to all electric, because VACUUM SUCKS! t is
stone age technology. Lancair did the same. Yes, we know by now you
didn't like your Cirrus.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

> but rather to a
> discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and
> what situations are not appropriate.
>

Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing. THEN
we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to
pilot. And as for the two accidents - we don't know enough about them to judge
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bill Denton]

Unfortunately, you are buying into exactly the reasons for the Cirrus' poor
history.

First, the chute is not an option, it is a necessity. When the airplane
reaches a particular state or meets a certain set of parameters, your only
possible course of action is to deploy the BRS. When you reach a particular
state, if you are in an Archer or a 172, you can recover. But if you are in
a Cirrus, you absolutely must deploy the BRS; there is no recovery.

Second, you made the statement: "THEN we can start discussing when to pull
it (the chute)." Unfortunately, it is not a matter that can be discussed.
Again, when the airplane reaches a particular state or meets a certain set
of parameters, your only possible course of action is to deploy the BRS.
There is no room for discussion.

Now let me give you an example that is in no way indicative of the operation
of the Cirrus. You go out to fly a new airplane. On the panel is a placard
reading: "Nose-up angles greater than 30 degrees will render this aircraft
uncontrollable and control cannot be regained. The BRS must be deployed
immediately or it will not be effective". So, you're flying along and exceed
a 30 degree nose-up attitude, and you get a warning horn. A panel scan tells
you that you have exceeded the allowed angle. So what do you do?

Unfortunately, at least half of the pilots will say: "This is bull****! I
can recover from a 30 degree nose up attitude! So they try to recover,
discover that the placard was correct, and deploy the BRS. And they find out
the placard is correct again; they have deployed the BRS too late for it to
be effective, and they end up breaking the airplane.

There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots who
either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they know
more than the people who designed and built the plane.



"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Richard,
>
> > but rather to a
> > discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute
and
> > what situations are not appropriate.
> >
>
> Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing.
THEN
> we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to
> pilot. And as for the two accidents - we don't know enough about them to
judge
> it.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Ace Pilot]

Does anyone know what kind of training Cirrus pilots get in terms of
when to use the parachute? I'm curious to know how it would compare to
the training military pilots get for using an ejection seat (which I'm
only slightly familiar with). Does either training syllabus deal with
gray areas, or do they both stick to something along the lines of "The
parachute/ejection seat shall be used under the following
circumstances..."

I would think that there is a fairly big psychological hurdle to
overcome for using the parachute or an ejection seat since you are
effectively saying there's nothing more I can do, time to leave it up
to fate. I'm guessing that the military tailors its training to
overcome this hurdle, whereas a company like Cirrus has to avoid
addressing gray areas for liability reasons. But that's just a guess.

[Michael]

(Rick Durden) wrote
> It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...

It's interesting how safety has become the new unquestionable watch
word - and how you don't dare be identified as anti-safety. I guess
it's the new political correctness of aviation. Safety above all.

So let's start with this - GA is not about safety above all. GA does
not and never will have the safety record of the airlines - we simply
do not have the equipment, training, experience, or operational
limitations of the airlines. If safety was the most important thing,
we would all ground those dangerous little airplanes and fly the
airlines. So now that we've debunked the safety-above-all-else
nonsense, let's move on.

> If you go
> back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
> out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
> were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
> '20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
> jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
> the mail parachutes).

That's an awfully one-sided and very incomplete view of the past.
Let's fill in some parts you left out. A pilot jumping from an
airplane in those years had essentially two options - a static
line/lanyard that secured the parachute to the airplane, and a
manually deployed (freefall) jump. Both had major problems.

A static line jump from an uncontrolled airplane is unthinkable today,
and this is in the era of airplanes that are dramatically more stable
in hands-off flight than the planes of yesteryear. In fact, today the
minimum crew on board an airplane used for static line jumps is two -
a pilot to control the airplane, and a jumpmaster to control the
static line.

Freefall jumps had their own problems. The techniques that we take
for granted today for controlling the body in freefall were unknown.
Body position on deployment was largely random, and parachutes of the
time lacked such features as freebags to mitigate the consequences of
this.

A parachute jump was quite a hazardous undertaking when necessary to
escape an airplane and performed by an inexperienced jumper. There
was much debate at the time whether the parachute actually made the
pilot safer or merely gave him a false sense of security and
encouraged him to abandon a controllable aircraft when the safer
course was to stay with it.

I know of at least one case in modern times when a pilot elected to
leave an airplane in flight after judging it safer to jump. The plane
eventually landed itself in a field - nearly running over some
children - and was repaired and flown out. The pilot's parachute
malfunctioned and he fell to his death.

> (Don't forget that Lindbergh jumped from his
> mail plane three times during his air mail career...thank goodness.)

Don't forget that Lindbergh started his aviation career as a
demonstration jumper, and had made many jumps before he ever soloed an
airplane. He was in rather a different risk pool than most other
pilots.

> Now technology has progressed to the point that we can have a
> whole-airplane parachute. Of course, it brings out the boneheads who
> are critical of those who live because they got to the point that they
> decided that they could not successfully continue the flight.

Actually, the criticism that comes up is that the airplane was
controllable and should have been landed. No small part of the
criticism also has to do with risk to innocent bystanders on the
ground, since the technology we have available does not allow the
pilot any control whatsoever over the parachute. I find this
interesting, since in the sport parachute world the non-steerable
emergency parachute has faded into history.

As a personal anecdote, I have once had occasion to use a
non-steerable emergency parachute after my main parachute partially
malfunctioned. I walked away from the experience, but in retrospect,
had I known then what I know now, I would have elected to keep the
partially malfunctioned but inherently steerable main parachute as the
better, safer option - and this was an emergency parachute with a
proven record of correctly deploying and saving lives consistently,
not the spotty record the Cirrus parachute has.

> Don't forget there is one Cirrus accident in which the aircraft spun
> in. It had two pilots aboard and apparently neither activated the
> chute. (It appears the rocket cooked off in the post crash fire and
> deployed the chute.)

This is only your conjecture. An equally viable conjecture is that an
attempt was made to activate the chute, and the system malfunctioned.
Given that we KNOW this happened in at least one other circumstance, I
say that my conjecture is at least as good as yours.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, in the one case where
we KNOW the pilot tried to use the chute and it failed, the pilot
landed the airplane. Had the chute worked, I'm sure you would now be
claiming that no second-guessing of the pilot's decision to use the
chute is acceptable - but in fact the plane was clearly controllable,
not by some hypothetical proficient pilot but by the very pilot who
made the decision to deploy the chute. Second, the system failed at
least once and maybe twice, and has worked as advertised only three
times. Those are not the kind of numbers that give me confidence in
the system. I consider it not ready for prime time. In sport
parachuting, an emergency parachute with this kind of history would be
going back for a lot more testing on nobody would buy it.

> When I teach aerobatics I tell my students that if
> the airplane is doing something you don't recognize and you cannot
> make it do something you do recognize by the time you get down to the
> altitude selected prior to flight, quit screwing around and jump out.

Fair enough - but what would your reaction be to a student who jumped
out thousands of feet above that defined altitude while in a
conventional upright spin? Even discounting the cost of the aircraft
(not insignificant) and the potential hazard to those on the ground,
you do realize that parachutes are not perfect, and the typical
emergency parachutes used for soaring and aerobatics by those with no
parachuting experience are a far sight from perfect?

In sport parachuting, where the use of the emergency parachute is at
least somewhat routine (the numbers I hear are between 1 in 300 and 1
in 600 jumps, but of course nobody has reliable records) there are
generally accepted criteria (with some variations) as to what
constitutes sufficient cause to jettison the main parachute and deploy
the emergency. These criteria are not the province of the highly
experienced jumper - they are part of the first jump course! And they
are not "get rid of anything less than a perfect parachute."

At some point, it will be necessary to define what constitutes an
emergency that justifies deploying the chute. I think the reason this
issue is coming up now is worth considering as well. Airframe
parachutes have been available for ultralights and very light aircraft
for many years, and have saved many lives, generally as a response to
structural failure. There is really no question that some of those
structural failures were the result of pilot error - performing
maneuvers beyond the skill of the pilot and/or the capability of the
aircraft. Nobody (AFAIK) questions the decision those pilots made to
use the parachute rather than die like a man, though of course what
they did to get themselves into that situation is (and should be)
questioned.

Only a few of the ultralight/light aircraft parachute deployments fall
into what I would call the "questionable" category - where it appears
that the pilot unnecessarily deployed the parachute when the aircraft
was still controllable and landable. Not saying it NEVER happens, but
it's not the norm. For that reason, airframe parachutes on
ultralights and very light aircraft are not controversial by any
means. Neither are personal parachutes in gliders and aerobatic
aircraft or emergency backup parachutes for skydivers controversial.

What makes the Cirrus special is that ALL the parachute deployments
seem to be questionable. That, coupled with the off-the-charts loss
rate of an aircraft supposedly designed for safety, means that
questions should be asked. Is there something wrong with the
aircraft? Does it attract the wrong kind of pilot?

Anti-lock brakes on cars were at first seen as a clear safety
advantage. In a move to encourage their use, insurance companies
would give discounted rates to those who purchased the feature. This
is no longer the case. Statistics conclusively show that ABS does not
reduce accident rates. The why and wherefore is open to debate, but
generally the assumption is that having the safety feature encourages
more agressive driving, and the net increase in safety is nil. Not
every apparrent safety improvement winds up improving safety - some
add cost, weight, and complexity and turn out to have no benefit. You
should at least be prepared to consider the possibility that CAPS
falls into that category on the Cirrus, despite the fact that it's a
proven benefit on ultralights and some very light aircraft.

I find it highly counterproductive than when someone starts asking the
hard questions, he is immediately labeled as anti-safety. I think
these questions need to be asked.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately, you are buying into exactly the reasons for the Cirrus'
poor
> history.
>
> First, the chute is not an option, it is a necessity. When the airplane
> reaches a particular state or meets a certain set of parameters, your only
> possible course of action is to deploy the BRS. When you reach a
particular
> state, if you are in an Archer or a 172, you can recover. But if you are
in
> a Cirrus, you absolutely must deploy the BRS; there is no recovery.
>
> Second, you made the statement: "THEN we can start discussing when to pull
> it (the chute)." Unfortunately, it is not a matter that can be discussed.
> Again, when the airplane reaches a particular state or meets a certain set
> of parameters, your only possible course of action is to deploy the BRS.
> There is no room for discussion.
>
> Now let me give you an example that is in no way indicative of the
operation
> of the Cirrus. You go out to fly a new airplane. On the panel is a placard
> reading: "Nose-up angles greater than 30 degrees will render this aircraft
> uncontrollable and control cannot be regained. The BRS must be deployed
> immediately or it will not be effective". So, you're flying along and
exceed
> a 30 degree nose-up attitude, and you get a warning horn. A panel scan
tells
> you that you have exceeded the allowed angle. So what do you do?

I would leave before anyone has a chance to reach for the start switch.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots who
> either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they know
> more than the people who designed and built the plane.

Maybe, but the time-honored solution to that type of problem is to quit building or
buying planes like that.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Bill Denton]

Unfortunately, if we followed your solution, everyone would still be lying
down on the wing to pilot a fabric-covered canard that needed a rail to take
off.

Almost every technological advance requires additional training, resulting
in an upgrade in skills and mindset. Consider the transition from props to
jets. I doubt if many pilots (other than the test pilots) made the
transition without additional training.

The Cirrus is not necessarily a dangerous airplane; it is a different
airplane, that looks a lot like many other GA airplanes. Which it isn't. Too
many pilots think they can just skim the POH and go. I read an article last
night that indicated that by offering additional training, Cirrus has been
able to make major inroads in it's accident problems.

Now, the inevitable analogy:

When antilock brake systems for automobiles first began achieving widespread
market penetration, the number of accidents involving police cars increased
dramatically. There were three primary reasons for this:

Exposure - Police officers drive a lot, and much of it is stop and go
driving.

Conditions - Police officers frequently drive at high speeds, which require
"hard stops". And they frequently drive on roads in less than optimal
conditions (maintenance, weather, etc.).

Training - Police officers were trained to "pump" the brakes, a technique
that causes ABS to work with even less efficiency than conventional brakes.

So, police departments implemented re-training programs that taught the
officers both to apply steady pressure to the brake pedal, and helped them
break their old pattern of pumping the brakes.

The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...




"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
> >
> > There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots
who
> > either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they
know
> > more than the people who designed and built the plane.
>
> Maybe, but the time-honored solution to that type of problem is to quit
building or
> buying planes like that.
>
> George Patterson
> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band
to
> play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come
home
> a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Michael]

"Bill Denton" > wrote
> Now, the inevitable analogy:
>
> When antilock brake systems for automobiles first began achieving widespread
> market penetration, the number of accidents involving police cars increased
> dramatically. There were three primary reasons for this:
>
> Exposure - Police officers drive a lot, and much of it is stop and go
> driving.
>
> Conditions - Police officers frequently drive at high speeds, which require
> "hard stops". And they frequently drive on roads in less than optimal
> conditions (maintenance, weather, etc.).
>
> Training - Police officers were trained to "pump" the brakes, a technique
> that causes ABS to work with even less efficiency than conventional brakes.
>
> So, police departments implemented re-training programs that taught the
> officers both to apply steady pressure to the brake pedal, and helped them
> break their old pattern of pumping the brakes.
>
> The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

Yes, it's a great analogy. A supposed safety advance was introduced
into the cars. After retraining, the result was almost as safe (not
safer) as what it replaced, and more expensive to boot. Without
retraining, it was a lot more dangerous. What was the advantage
again?

> And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
> given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

Michael

[Newps]

"> "Bill Denton" > wrote
> > And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining,
but
> > given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...


The Cirrus was touted to be safer than all the other airplanes. Now we find
out it is 300% more lethal than the Cessna 182S.

[Ron Lee]

Michael, your perception of my post is so off base as to be
irrelevant. Go reread my posts with an open mind and try to fathom
whay I was saying.

Ron Lee



(Michael Houghton) wrote:

>Howdy!
>
>In article >,
>Ron Lee > wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:
>>
>>>Ron,
>>>
>>>It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>>>approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>>
>>Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>>am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>>be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>
>It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
>do so.
>
>You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
>the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
>You harp on the pilot's culpability.
>>
>>To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
>>mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
>>two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
>>series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
>>on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
>>parachute.
>
>You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
>had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
>were somehow defective.
>
>If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
>you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
>to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
>choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
>rest of us) of what was actually happening.
>
>Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
>military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
>overcome then.
>>
>>I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
>>compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
>>well.
>>
>I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
>the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
>the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.
>
>yours,
>Michael
>
>
>--
>Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
>Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
> | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Ron Lee]

Greg, if you are the type pilot who relies upon such a system instead
of proper flight planning and judgment to avoid potentially fatal
situations, I have no desire to ever fly in an aircraft with you as
PIC. Of course these comments may or may not apply to these cases.

I am merely raising points to consider and a few of you are going
postal misinterpreting my comments. Makes me wonder of you are
dealers.

Ron Lee

Greg Copeland > wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:37:27 +0000, Michael Houghton wrote:
>
>> Howdy!
>>
>> In article >,
>> Ron Lee > wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ron,
>>>>
>>>>It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>>>>approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>>>
>>>Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>>>am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>>>be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>>
>> It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
>> do so.
>>
>> You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
>> the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
>> You harp on the pilot's culpability.
>>>
>>>To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
>>>mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
>>>two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
>>>series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
>>>on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
>>>parachute.
>>
>> You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
>> had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
>> were somehow defective.
>>
>> If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
>> you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
>> to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
>> choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
>> rest of us) of what was actually happening.
>>
>> Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
>> military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
>> overcome then.
>>>
>>>I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
>>>compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
>>>well.
>>>
>> I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
>> the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
>> the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.
>>
>> yours,
>> Michael
>
>Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
>saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
>still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
>would you rather use? A chute or ego?
>
>I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
>later. I'm with ya Michael!
>
>
>
>

[Ron Lee]

Cap, you may be right but my point remains that there may be
underlying training/judgement issues that if solved will save many
more lives than the parachutes ever will. For every possible live
saves by a airplane chute, there may be a hundred or more lost because
of pilot error. So unless plane parachutes are mandated, the payback
is mucho better on fixing the pilot problem.

Ron Lee


(Captain Wubba) wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
>> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>> >Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
>> >saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
>> >still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
>> >would you rather use? A chute or ego?
>> >
>> >I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
>> >later. I'm with ya Michael!
>>
>> I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
>> be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
>> safe" planes without that system?
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>Well, I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have an engine failure.
>I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have a vacuum failure in nasty
>hard IMC. I'd *rather* be the pilot who never got a bad vector into a
>thunderstorm cell. Let me know when you can guarantee that these
>things won't happen to me (or you), OK?
>
>But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
>the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I
>*can* guarantee...buy flying a plane with a BRS chute. That is all
>this is - an option. You think a pilot is going to pop a chute on a
>$200,000 airframe and turn it into nifty piece of non-flying
>avante-garde artwork because he wants to see what the ride down feels
>like?
>
>This is no more a 'crutch' than GPS is a crutch. Should we go back to
>four-course radio ranges, because these 'new-fangled' VORs encourage
>pilots to rely on them, and not maintain the skills that they had 'way
>back then'?
>
>Flying is *all* about risk management. To accomplish virtually
>anything, one must take certain risks, and smart pilots judge those
>risks based on the availability of options to deal with the problems
>they might bring. I know some very good pilots who will not fly
>single-engine at night in hard IMC. Their call...they understand the
>risks, and they are the ones putting their butts on the line. That
>might change now if they can fly a Cirrus, because they would have one
>more, final option in case things get *really* bad. Would they want to
>pull the chute? Obviously not...nor would they want a forced landing
>off field...but they would take *either* if the other choice is a nice
>headstone with their name on it somewhere.
>
>Yes, I'll continue flying Cessnas. But if I have my choice between
>flying a plane that has a chute and one that doesn't, all else being
>equal, of *course* I'd choose the plane with the chute. Who wouldn't?
>Would you go to a restaurant with 5 things on the menu, instead of an
>identical place that had 20, just because you *might* choose not to
>eat any of the other choices?
>
>There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
>that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the
>risk-management portfolio of the wise pilot...an option to save lives
>when all the other options are gone. As such, it is a great benefit to
>the aviation community, and I can only hope that it becomes increasing
>common.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Cap

[Ron Lee]

Thomas, I see your point. Let's take it to an extreme. I am a pilot
flying a parachute equipped plane. I have to use an airports
facilities really, really bad. I see an airport under me. I decide
the best way down is to deploy the parachute so that the leather seats
are not ruined. The plane is destroyed but it was my call and my call
alone that my course of action was right.

You have no right to respond negatively to my course of action because
only I and I alone was there to assess all the factors involved.

However, I will say that I was an idiot.

Ron Lee


Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Richard,
>
>> whether the
>> parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
>> electrical failure.
>>
>
>I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
>is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
>containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
>effect, you do.
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Ron Lee]

Answer to question 1 is one. A CAPS-like system would not have
helped. He had an engine failure at relatively low altitude and
turned back to the airport, hit a utility pole and ultimately died
from horrific burns.

Pilot error.

Ron Lee



(Dean Wilkinson) wrote:

>Hi Ron,
>
>A question for you:
>
>How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
>general aviation accidents?
>
>A second question:
>
>If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
>afterwards about the circumstances of their accident? Did you assign
>any blame to them? Might a CAPS system saved their lives?
>
>Your attitude on this subject indicates to me that your answer to
>question number 1 will be zero, but if not, I would be interested in
>hearing your answer to question number 2.
>
>Dean
>
(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
>> (Rick Durden) wrote:
>>
>> >Ron,
>> >
>> >It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>> >approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.
>>
>> Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>> am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>> be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>>
>> To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
>> mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
>> two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
>> series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
>> on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
>> parachute.
>>
>> I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
>> compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
>> well.
>>
>> Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
that I made. Sounds like a Democrat :)

Ron Lee

"C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
>"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
>> Ron,
>>
>> It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
>> approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go
>> back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
>> out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
>> were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
>> '20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
>> jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
>> the mail parachutes).
>
>If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that
>every safety improvement is a bad thing.
>
>If these guys had their way, cars would instead of airbags have a sharp
>spear embedded in the steering column which would impale any driver who was
>so careless as to get into an accident.
>
>Their attitude seems to be that a small bomb should be installed in every
>airplane so that anyone who is so thoughtless as to crash is guaranteed to
>be scattered in small pieces over a wide area.
>
>

[Ron Lee]

(Michael) wrote:

(Rick Durden) wrote
>> It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...

>I find it highly counterproductive than when someone starts asking the
>hard questions, he is immediately labeled as anti-safety. I think
>these questions need to be asked.
>
>Michael

Well said Michael. Now I will add additional info to refute Durden's
assertion that I am anti-safety. I started skydiving in the mid-70s.
One main malfunction where I had to deploy my reserve according to my
training. I would do it again today under the same circumstances.

I scuba dive. That also has an element of risk but I have mitigated
that risk with good equipment, mucho training (improves safety and
ability to handle problems properly...not bolting to the surface (or
pulling the handle)).

And I fly. I mantain contact with the local approach control when
flying above my local airport due to safety concerns of making
undesired contact with commercial jets.

I took a mountain flying course last year before I ever ventured into
the Rockies. Sounds like a safety minded pilot to me.

I have cancelled many flights in the summer afternoon because of
building rain cells. I have see too many strong gust fronts and see
others risk their safety because of them to risk it myself. Sounds
like a safe attitude on my part.

I have diverted to another airport because of rain over my airport.
Maybe a wussy move...but in my opinion a safe decision.

I could go on, but Mr Durden, you are 100% wrong about me being
"anti-safety". By questioning the pilot's role in these incidents, my
view is more likely to achieve real reductions in lost lives that
adopting a "pull the handle" approach.

Ron Lee

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
>"Bill Denton" > wrote

[snip ABS and police]
>>
>> The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.
>
>Yes, it's a great analogy. A supposed safety advance was introduced
>into the cars. After retraining, the result was almost as safe (not
>safer) as what it replaced, and more expensive to boot. Without
>retraining, it was a lot more dangerous. What was the advantage
>again?

Would you care to cite some independent corroboration for the columny you
offer? What is "less safe" about ABS?

Bill Denton spoke of how it caused *police officers* problems, but not
the general driving public.

Or are you just opposed to any safety advance?
>
>> And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
>> given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...
>
>But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
>supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
>sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

....no more dangerous than any other light single...or are you just picking
out a phrase to hilight it with (implied) scare quotes? Bad troll. No
biscuit.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
>Thomas, I see your point. Let's take it to an extreme. I am a pilot
>flying a parachute equipped plane. I have to use an airports
>facilities really, really bad. I see an airport under me. I decide
>the best way down is to deploy the parachute so that the leather seats
>are not ruined. The plane is destroyed but it was my call and my call
>alone that my course of action was right.
>
>You have no right to respond negatively to my course of action because
>only I and I alone was there to assess all the factors involved.

Well, your decision to pull the handle was yours and yours alone to make.
Once you did it, there was no going back. If you don't share your true
reason, we won't be able to point and laugh. On the other hand, if there is
a formal investigation into the condition of the airplane, it may be
discerned that nothing was wrong.

Of course, your scenario elides the (probably) quicker way to get to those
facilities -- flying the airplane onto the runway and taxiing to the FBO,
but you had a point to make...
>
>However, I will say that I was an idiot.
>
Well...you know yourself best...

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > top-posted his remark 75 lines away from
what he responded to:

>Greg, if you are the type pilot who relies upon such a system instead
>of proper flight planning and judgment to avoid potentially fatal
>situations, I have no desire to ever fly in an aircraft with you as
>PIC. Of course these comments may or may not apply to these cases.

You ASSume that "thinking parachutes may be a good thing" therefore
means a blind reliance on same and a disregard of "proper flight
planning and judgement". Or at least you give that impression. I'm
curious how you come to these conclusions.
>
>I am merely raising points to consider and a few of you are going
>postal misinterpreting my comments. Makes me wonder of you are
>dealers.
>
No. You are making pretty strong and dogmatic claims that BRS is a
dangerous crutch -- pretty much the same claims that delayed the
introduction of parachutes into military aviation, and just as valid.
Now you use your outside voice to lay down a lame ad hominem attack
on those who disagree with your position. Get a life.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
>Michael, your perception of my post is so off base as to be
>irrelevant. Go reread my posts with an open mind and try to fathom
>whay I was saying.
>
Would you care to point out more clearly where I misspeak? If your
words don't mean what the seem to mean on a plain reading, then
perhaps you need to reconsider how you express yourself.

If you took the time to address specific points in context instead
of dropping a vague remark at the top (top posting bad), placing
the *burden* on your readers to figure out what you are responding
to, perhaps you might add some clarity. But you insist on putting
your words out of context, where others can easily misconstrue them.

You wrote and I responded:
>>>Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
>>>am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
>>>be rectified by "pulling the handle."
>>
>>It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
>>do so.
>>
>>You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
>>the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
>>You harp on the pilot's culpability.

You do not address how your claims are at all consistent with one-another.

I'm not going to repeat the rest -- if you can't be bothered to address
the concerns, but feel it necessary to make a vague response, you imply
agreement.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
>Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
>that I made. Sounds like a Democrat :)
>
What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
call it a crutch.

You sound sad.

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
(Michael) wrote:
>
(Rick Durden) wrote
>>> It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...
>
>>I find it highly counterproductive than when someone starts asking the
>>hard questions, he is immediately labeled as anti-safety. I think
>>these questions need to be asked.

It is useful to examine the use of BRS to discern how the pilot came to
the decision to deploy. Given the relative newness of BRS in GA, there is
little actual data on how one decides when it is time to pull the handle.
That examination can include "hard questions" without prejudging the
pilot. Wondering out loud if it "is a last resort for pilot incompetence"
or characterizing it as a "crutch" is not part of constructively
considering the matter. It displays a disdain for the tool that suggests
an anti-safety perspective.
>>
>>Michael
>
>Well said Michael. Now I will add additional info to refute Durden's
>assertion that I am anti-safety. I started skydiving in the mid-70s.
>One main malfunction where I had to deploy my reserve according to my
>training. I would do it again today under the same circumstances.

[snip declamation]

When your declamation is considered in consort with your statements in
this thread, it comes across as "but I have friends who are black/gay/
republicans".
>
>I could go on, but Mr Durden, you are 100% wrong about me being
>"anti-safety". By questioning the pilot's role in these incidents, my
>view is more likely to achieve real reductions in lost lives that
>adopting a "pull the handle" approach.

You don't question the pilot's roles so much as you insinuate that they
exhibited questionable judgement and relied on a crutch as a substitute
for good pilotage and flying judgement. You prejudge the pilots and you
prejudge the tools they used.

It is entirely possible that either or both of those pilots were hasty
in resorting to the BRS, but none of us have the information needed
to draw that conclusion. You seem to disagree.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Ron Lee]

(Michael Houghton) wrote:

>Howdy!
>
>In article >,
>Ron Lee > wrote:
>>Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
>>that I made. Sounds like a Democrat :)
>>
>What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
>on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:
>
> I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
>
>You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
>the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
>might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
>trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
>historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
>whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
>call it a crutch.

MIchael, I said "I wonder". That is not a definitive statement. It
raises an issue that is worth discussing about what really led to the
deployment of the parachute. See how you are misreading my posts.
That is what is sad.

>You sound sad.

Actually I am quite happy and well adjusted.. Do some of you folks
always react this way with points of view that are different than your
own?

Ron Lee

>yours,
>Michael
>
>
>
>--
>Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
>Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
> | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[David Dyer-Bennet]

(Ron Lee) writes:

> (Michael Houghton) wrote:
>
>>Howdy!
>>
>>In article >,
>>Ron Lee > wrote:
>>>Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
>>>that I made. Sounds like a Democrat :)
>>>
>>What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
>>on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:
>>
>> I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
>> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
>>
>>You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
>>the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
>>might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
>>trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
>>historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
>>whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
>>call it a crutch.
>
> MIchael, I said "I wonder". That is not a definitive statement. It
> raises an issue that is worth discussing about what really led to the
> deployment of the parachute. See how you are misreading my posts.
> That is what is sad.

So, if I say "I wonder if Ron is a pedophile", that's okay, because I
said "I wonder"? Sorry, but publicly saying you wonder about
something is a public accusation, and shouldn't be made casually.
Public wondering must be reserved for situations where you have some
legitemate *cause* to wonder.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Lee > wrote:
(Michael Houghton) wrote:
>
>>Howdy!
>>
>>In article >,
>>Ron Lee > wrote:
>>>Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
>>>that I made. Sounds like a Democrat :)
>>>
>>What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
>>on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:
>>
>> I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
>> is a last resort for pilot incompetence?
>>
>>You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
>>the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
>>might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
>>trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
>>historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
>>whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
>>call it a crutch.
>
>MIchael, I said "I wonder". That is not a definitive statement. It
>raises an issue that is worth discussing about what really led to the
>deployment of the parachute. See how you are misreading my posts.
>That is what is sad.

"incompetence" is a pretty strong word to use. By inserting it into the
discourse as early as you did, you suggest to a reasonable reader that
you think it might somehow apply. Being a bit eager to pull the chute
does not, by any stretch of the imagination, automatically rise to the
level of incompetence. You follow up by characterizing the mere presence
of the BRS as a crutch. Taken as a whole, your remarks convey a meaning
that you claim is a misreading.
>
>>You sound sad.
>
>Actually I am quite happy and well adjusted.. Do some of you folks
>always react this way with points of view that are different than your
>own?

I react this way to people who make statements and implications and then
deny that they meant what we are inferring. I also don't react favorably
to logical fallacies when they get trotted out.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael]

(Michael Houghton) wrote
> Bill Denton spoke of how it caused *police officers* problems, but not
> the general driving public.

Police officers have pretty much the worst accident records of anyone.
Of course no small part of it is the fact that they have a legitimate
reason to drive agressively (chasing down murderers) whereas most
drivers don't. Still, if there is a problem, that's where it's going
to show up first.

It took insurance companies years to decide that ABS didn't warrant a
discount. It just looked so good on paper. This was a good early
indication.

> Or are you just opposed to any safety advance?

Ah, that must be it. I must be anti-safety.

> >But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
> >supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
> >sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.
>
> ...no more dangerous than any other light single...

Yes it is more dangerous than MOST other light singles. It has over
THREE TIMES the fatality rate of the new C-182's - and the C-182's are
basically an old, warmed-over design. The Cirrus is supposedly
designed for safety.

Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing.
THEN
> we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to

Yes, I agree with you. As long as the presence of a parachute does not
become an excuse not to maintain proficiency with skills that could allow
the airplane to be safely landed without the parachute.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
> supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
> sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

Do you know why/how AOPA stated in today's Epilot newletter that the Cirrus
is as safe as the 172/182? The recent stats from Aviation Safety (BEFORE
the recent fatal accident this week) showed it clearly had a worse safety
record.

Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
correct agenda?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
> correct agenda?

Perhaps the blurb for the newsletter was written before the recent accidents?

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Richard Kaplan]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...>

> Perhaps the blurb for the newsletter was written before the recent
accidents?


No, the article was ABOUT this week's fatal SC accident.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Ron Lee]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing.
>THEN
>> we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to
>
>Yes, I agree with you. As long as the presence of a parachute does not
>become an excuse not to maintain proficiency with skills that could allow
>the airplane to be safely landed without the parachute.

Exactly

Ron Lee
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>
>

[David Reinhart]

We're they quoting accidents or fatal accidents? That could make a difference.

Dave Reinhart


Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
> > supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
> > sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.
>
> Do you know why/how AOPA stated in today's Epilot newletter that the Cirrus
> is as safe as the 172/182? The recent stats from Aviation Safety (BEFORE
> the recent fatal accident this week) showed it clearly had a worse safety
> record.
>
> Is AOPA being less than objective here in order to suit some politically
> correct agenda?
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com