Ballistic chute saves 4 souls

[Bob Babcock]

On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board deployed
his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on a
remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and entered
a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the 4200
foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP officer
on the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting a
serious out of balance situation.

They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta when
the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

[Richard Riley]

On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) wrote:

:On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board deployed
:his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on a
:remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and entered
:a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the 4200
:foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP officer
:on the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting a
:serious out of balance situation.
:
:They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta when
:the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

[Bob Babcock]

Richard Riley > wrote in message >...
> On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) wrote:
>
> I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
> successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
info as the same weekend. Apparently both incidents are the
respective firsts for each country. The Texas guy went down in Texas
after loosing a wing flap without injury. The article I found was in
the Edmonton Journal under thier 7 day archive menu for Apr.10. Any
search engine should give you thier website.

[Rich S.]

"Bob Babcock" > wrote in message
om...
> The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
> another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
> info as the same weekend. Apparently both incidents are the
> respective firsts for each country. The Texas guy went down in Texas
> after loosing a wing flap without injury. The article I found was in
> the Edmonton Journal under thier 7 day archive menu for Apr.10. Any
> search engine should give you thier website.

Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!

I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more
freaking time!

WHY is this so difficult?

[BllFs6]

>Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!
>
>I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more
>freaking time!
>

Sounds like someones loosing their mind to me :)

take care

Blll

Hey Rich...do you have a hot water heater?

[Rich S.]

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey Rich...do you have a hot water heater?

Nope. Gotta cold water heater in a hot water tank...

:o)

Rich

[Daniel]

(Bob Babcock) wrote in message >...
> Richard Riley > wrote in message >...
> > On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) wrote:
> >
> > I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
> > successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.
>
> The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
> another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
> info as the same weekend. ...


No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also.

Daniel

[frank connaly]

Better start screaming .I am curious is the crash in Texas a result of
"Loosing" unequal amounts of fuel also?
"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey Rich...do you have a hot water heater?
>
> Nope. Gotta cold water heater in a hot water tank...
>
> :o)
>
> Rich
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Babcock" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
> > another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
> > info as the same weekend. Apparently both incidents are the
> > respective firsts for each country. The Texas guy went down in Texas
> > after loosing a wing flap without injury. The article I found was in
> > the Edmonton Journal under thier 7 day archive menu for Apr.10. Any
> > search engine should give you thier website.
>
> Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!
>
> I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one
more
> freaking time!
>
> WHY is this so difficult?
>
>

WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to misspell
losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this issue.

[BllFs6]

>WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to misspell
>losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this issue.

As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....

And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....

And I for one will not take it lieing down...

take care

Blll

[Felger Carbon]

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
> >WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
misspell
> >losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
issue.
>
> As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....
>
> And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....
>
> And I for one will not take it lieing down...

Hilarious, Blll !! You forgot "waiting with baited breath", though.
;-)

[Bob Babcock]

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...
> "Bob Babcock" > wrote in message

>
> Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!
>
> I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more
> freaking time!
>
> WHY is this so difficult?

Get a life, looser.

[Rich S.]

"Bob Babcock" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
>...
> > "Bob Babcock" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!
> >
> > I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one
more
> > freaking time!
> >
> > WHY is this so difficult?
>
> Get a life, looser.

Hey hey hey! Ol bob has shown us *he's* Mensa material.

[Tim Ward]

"Jack Idler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
misspell
> > >losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
issue.
> >
> > As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....
> >
> > And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....
> >
> > And I for one will not take it lieing down...
> >
> > take care
> >
> > Blll
>
> Your right! Its enough!
>
>
Oh, just go back into you're hanger and measure the cord of you're wing.

Tim Ward

[Edwin B. Sullivan]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:45:50 GMT, "Felger Carbon" >
wrote:

>"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
>> >WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
>misspell
>> >losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
>issue.
>>
>> As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....
>>
>> And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....
>>
>> And I for one will not take it lieing down...
>
>Hilarious, Blll !! You forgot "waiting with baited breath", though.
>;-)
>
That's legitimate it refers to the cat who ate the cheese and waited
with baited breath.

Ed

[Edwin B. Sullivan]

On 15 Apr 2004 19:24:02 -0700, (Daniel)
wrote:

(Bob Babcock) wrote in message >...
>> Richard Riley > wrote in message >...
>> > On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) wrote:
>> >
>> > I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
>> > successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.
>>
>> The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
>> another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
>> info as the same weekend. ...
>
>
>No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also.
>
>Daniel

Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's
under them and who's driving it.

ebs

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:46 -0700, Edwin B. Sullivan >
wrote:

>>> > I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
>>> > successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.
>>>
>>> The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
>>> another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
>>> info as the same weekend. ...
>>
>>No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also.
>
>Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's
>under them and who's driving it.

If a pilot is not confident of his or her ability to safely land an
aircraft in any given situation, they probably can't. In these cases, the
CAPS is a good idea.

Ultimately, I doubt you'll see a real change in the accident rates. I
think we'll see a reduction in the number of off-airport forced landings as
some pilots activate the CAPS systems. As some of these "landings"
occasionally become crashes with fatalities, we'll probably see a net
reduction in fatalities.

In most situations, the argument can always be made that the pilot should
have been able to land safely. But tapping on a keyboard is not the same
as being aloft with a sick airplane. I tend to be reminded of the
situation in WWI..."We don't give our pilots parachutes, as they'll be too
willing to abandon their aircraft in an emergency."

Ultimately, I think this issue will get resolved in the classic way: By
the insurance companies, and by the courts. I think if Avemco, et. al,
think they're paying out money they wouldn't have had to if the plane
hadn't had a CAPS, they'll start upping the Cirrus rates.

And if they find they pay out a lot less for Cirrus claims, they'll up the
rates to everyone that DOESN'T have a CAPS. You can replace a lot of $300K
Cirruses with what you'd shell out on a single wrongful death suit.

I suspect at some point, a grieving widow will sue Cirrus, and the company
will claim that the pilot had an onboard safety system and didn't chose to
use it. If Cirrus wins...the product liability underwriters will probably
force the other aircraft manufacturers to follow suit.

Stay tuned....

Ron "Pass the popcorn" Wanttaja

[Daniel]

Rich S. wrote ...
>
> Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!
>
> I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more
> freaking time!
>
> WHY is this so difficult?


You either need to get a dictionary or check the facts of the story.

The Texas plane had an aileron come loose. He did not lose it, it
remained attached.

The transitive verb as used is therefore quite correct: "loosing" not
"losing".

Daniel

[B2431]

>From: "Tim Ward"
>Date: 4/16/2004 7:55 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Jack Idler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
>misspell
>> > >losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
>issue.
>> >
>> > As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....
>> >
>> > And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....
>> >
>> > And I for one will not take it lieing down...
>> >
>> > take care
>> >
>> > Blll
>>
>> Your right! Its enough!
>>
>>
>Oh, just go back into you're hanger and measure the cord of you're wing.
>
>Tim Ward
>

You might need a women to help.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Dohm]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:46 -0700, Edwin B. Sullivan >
> wrote:
>
> >>> > I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
> >>> > successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.
> >>>
> >>> The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
> >>> another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
> >>> info as the same weekend. ...
> >>
> >>No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also.
> >
> >Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's
> >under them and who's driving it.
>
> If a pilot is not confident of his or her ability to safely land an
> aircraft in any given situation, they probably can't. In these cases, the
> CAPS is a good idea.
>
> Ultimately, I doubt you'll see a real change in the accident rates. I
> think we'll see a reduction in the number of off-airport forced landings as
> some pilots activate the CAPS systems. As some of these "landings"
> occasionally become crashes with fatalities, we'll probably see a net
> reduction in fatalities.
>
> In most situations, the argument can always be made that the pilot should
> have been able to land safely. But tapping on a keyboard is not the same
> as being aloft with a sick airplane. I tend to be reminded of the
> situation in WWI..."We don't give our pilots parachutes, as they'll be too
> willing to abandon their aircraft in an emergency."
>
> Ultimately, I think this issue will get resolved in the classic way: By
> the insurance companies, and by the courts. I think if Avemco, et. al,
> think they're paying out money they wouldn't have had to if the plane
> hadn't had a CAPS, they'll start upping the Cirrus rates.
>
> And if they find they pay out a lot less for Cirrus claims, they'll up the
> rates to everyone that DOESN'T have a CAPS. You can replace a lot of $300K
> Cirruses with what you'd shell out on a single wrongful death suit.
>
> I suspect at some point, a grieving widow will sue Cirrus, and the company
> will claim that the pilot had an onboard safety system and didn't chose to
> use it. If Cirrus wins...the product liability underwriters will probably
> force the other aircraft manufacturers to follow suit.
>
> Stay tuned....
>
> Ron "Pass the popcorn" Wanttaja

You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three
ways to look at this:
1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with
$300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability;
and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft.
Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be
up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in
the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do
not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.)
2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument
being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If
automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the
aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it."
3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made
it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares
the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a
reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins!

Peter

[RobertR237]

>
>Better start screaming .I am curious is the crash in Texas a result of
>"Loosing" unequal amounts of fuel also?
>"Rich S."

Nope, it was the result of a maintenance error that resulting in the failure of
one of the ailerons. The pilot did not lose control of the aircraft but felt
that a controled landing would not be possible and elected to use the chute
instead.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Richard Riley]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:08:55 GMT, Peter Dohm >
wrote:

:
:You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three
:ways to look at this:
:1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with
:$300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability;
:and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft.
:Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be
:up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in
:the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do
:not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.)

That's assuming (as everyone has, till now) that pulling the handle
will result in a destroyed aircraft. I'm not sure we're going to find
that. As I understand it, the airplane in the first successful
deployment (the one in Texas, mentioned up higher in the thread) was
bought back by the factory and is flying again.


:2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument
:being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If
:automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the
:aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it."

:3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made
:it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares
:the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a
:reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins!

I'm sorry, I don't get that. I mean, lots of airplanes that are
certified for spins have been lost in spins. Ignoring the BRS the
Cirrus performance is very good, compared to other things in it's
class.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:55:25 -0700, "Tim Ward" >
wrote:

>
>"Jack Idler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
>misspell
>> > >losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
>issue.
>> >
>> > As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....
>> >
>> > And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....
>> >
>> > And I for one will not take it lieing down...
>> >
>> > take care
>> >
>> > Blll
>>
>> Your right! Its enough!
>>
>>
>Oh, just go back into you're hanger and measure the cord of you're wing.

That would be 4 ft x 4 ft x 8 ft.

>
>Tim Ward
>

--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Model Flyer]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
wrote:
>
> :On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
deployed
> :his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
a
> :remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
entered
> :a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
4200
> :foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
officer
> :on the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
a
> :serious out of balance situation.
> :
> :They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
when
> :the incident happened over the BC Rockies.
>
> I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
> successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)

[Model Flyer]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Bob Babcock" > wrote in message
> > om...

>
> WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
misspell
> losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
issue.
>


LOOSING is the act of using a LOO in the UK, where as losing is what
it is.:-) now I've got my flame-proof knickerbockers on so there.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)



>

[Dillon Pyron]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer" >
wrote:

>
>"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
>wrote:
>>
>> :On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
>deployed
>> :his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
>a
>> :remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
>entered
>> :a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
>4200
>> :foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
>officer
>> :on the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
>a
>> :serious out of balance situation.
>> :
>> :They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
>when
>> :the incident happened over the BC Rockies.
>>
>> I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
>> successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.
>
>The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
>are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
their skills.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:45:04 GMT, Dillon Pyron
> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer" >
>wrote:
>>The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
>>are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?
>
>Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
>situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
>their skills.

Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not the
Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear parachutes.
Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless lives, can we?

Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license. Take
him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds are, he
can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake? *Mechanical*
brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?

But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop him
in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good stab at
it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an Aviat Husky.
Which, of course, is currently in production.

Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well, guess
what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes, which, for
the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds with a
mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers attached to
cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces, whose relative
positions have to be coordinated and change with the application of power,
amount of fuel burned, etc.

I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed* to be
difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't measure up,
you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator... well, I hope those
who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared airplanes. People
complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.

The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the viability
of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and full-aircraft ballistic
recovery parachutes proved themselves in the ultralight/homebuilt world.
Other innovations, like electronic ignition, got their start in
homebuilding as well.

Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a skilled
pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But the point of
the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content to leave that
particular controversy to the insurance companies and courts to decide.

Ron Wanttaja

[RobertR237]

>
>Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not the
>Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear parachutes.
>Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless lives, can we?
>
>Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
>16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license. Take
>him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds are, he
>can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake? *Mechanical*
>brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?
>
>But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop him
>in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good stab at
>it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an Aviat Husky.
>Which, of course, is currently in production.
>
>Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well, guess
>what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes, which, for
>the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds with a
>mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers attached to
>cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces, whose relative
>positions have to be coordinated and change with the application of power,
>amount of fuel burned, etc.
>
>I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
>challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed* to be
>difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't measure up,
>you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator... well, I hope those
>who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared airplanes. People
>complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.
>
>The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
>about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the viability
>of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and full-aircraft ballistic
>recovery parachutes proved themselves in the ultralight/homebuilt world.
>Other innovations, like electronic ignition, got their start in
>homebuilding as well.
>
>Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a skilled
>pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But the point of
>the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content to leave that
>particular controversy to the insurance companies and courts to decide.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>
>

Thank you Ron for a very good perspective on the BRS debate. I think that you
could have save a lot of time and typing by just cutting to the chase with the
one and most important statement:

"But the point of CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos."

What we have been hearing here is a lot of egos say "I could have done
better....blah, blah, blah". The fact is that not a one of them was in the air
with the pilot at the time and not a single one knows for certain that they
could have done better or would have done anything different. The true benefit
to CAPS is that it gives the pilot another option to save their lives.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Jeff]

(RobertR237) wrote in
:

>>
>>Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not
>>the Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear
>>parachutes. Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless
>>lives, can we?
>>
>>Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
>>16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license.
>>Take him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds
>>are, he can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake?
>>*Mechanical* brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?
>>
>>But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop
>>him in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good
>>stab at it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an
>>Aviat Husky. Which, of course, is currently in production.
>>
>>Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well,
>>guess what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes,
>>which, for the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds
>>with a mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers
>>attached to cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces,
>>whose relative positions have to be coordinated and change with the
>>application of power, amount of fuel burned, etc.
>>
>>I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
>>challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed*
>>to be difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't
>>measure up, you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator...
>>well, I hope those who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared
>>airplanes. People complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.
>>
>>The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
>>about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the
>>viability of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and
>>full-aircraft ballistic recovery parachutes proved themselves in the
>>ultralight/homebuilt world. Other innovations, like electronic
>>ignition, got their start in homebuilding as well.
>>
>>Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a
>>skilled pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But
>>the point of the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content
>>to leave that particular controversy to the insurance companies and
>>courts to decide.
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you Ron for a very good perspective on the BRS debate. I think
> that you could have save a lot of time and typing by just cutting to
> the chase with the one and most important statement:
>
> "But the point of CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos."
>
> What we have been hearing here is a lot of egos say "I could have done
> better....blah, blah, blah". The fact is that not a one of them was
> in the air with the pilot at the time and not a single one knows for
> certain that they could have done better or would have done anything
> different. The true benefit to CAPS is that it gives the pilot
> another option to save their lives.
>
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>
>

..