Iced up Cirrus descends by BRS

[Wallace Berry]

Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
uninjured.

[Darkwing]

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
> where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
> out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
> pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
> uninjured.

Icing in Alabama, damn.

-------------------------------------
DW

[Ron Lee]

Wallace Berry > wrote:

>Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
>where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
>out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
>pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
>uninjured.

And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
anticipated.

Ron Lee

[Scott Skylane]

Ron Lee wrote:

> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
> anticipated.
>
> Ron Lee
>
Another point to consider, weather conditions on the ground at that time
were quite good. Birmingham reported about 4300 Broken, temp +9C.
Montgomery had 3500 Scattered, +14C. Odds are, he could have just
descended into warmer, clearer air, shed the ice, and flew on, a bit
wiser and scareder(sp?). We'll never know, of course, and you can't
argue with "success", but I have to wonder about this "pull the chute if
anything is amiss, and let the chips fall where they may(so to speak)"
mentality that the BRS types advocate. Someday, someone's going to get
hurt, when they didn't have to.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Darkwing]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
>> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
>> anticipated. Ron Lee
>>
> Another point to consider, weather conditions on the ground at that time
> were quite good. Birmingham reported about 4300 Broken, temp +9C.
> Montgomery had 3500 Scattered, +14C. Odds are, he could have just
> descended into warmer, clearer air, shed the ice, and flew on, a bit wiser
> and scareder(sp?). We'll never know, of course, and you can't argue with
> "success", but I have to wonder about this "pull the chute if anything is
> amiss, and let the chips fall where they may(so to speak)" mentality that
> the BRS types advocate. Someday, someone's going to get hurt, when they
> didn't have to.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane


That's true in any situation and our Armchair Quarterbacking will always
make sense after the fact. But if the thing truly did go out of control I
don't think I would "hope" that a warmer lower level would shed the ice and
allow me to regain control, assuming of course the wings stayed attached. I
think I'd rather read that the chute "saved" the lives of 3 GA pilots and
passengers instead of another GA plane crash in bad weather that caused the
plane to "stall". The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a good PR
story for GA.

------------------------------------
DW

[Ben Hallert]

> The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a good PR story for GA.

I'd like to suggest an alternate interpretation: These ballistic
chutes are good PR for ballistic chutes. They're poor PR for the 99%
of planes that don't have them, and only reinforce the opinion in the
minds of the public that small planes are inherently unsafe UNLESS they
have chutes.

A non-aviator sees one of these stories and doesn't think "Wow, I guess
these planes are safer than I though!" They think "Wow, he sure was
lucky that plane happened to have a parachute."

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[darthpup]

You think ice builds up slowly? Think again. In thirty to sixty
seconds your wings can become unusable. Flying into clouds in the
Winter. DDDuuuuuhhh

[Ron Lee]

Scott Skylane > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
>> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
>> anticipated.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>Another point to consider, weather conditions on the ground at that time
>were quite good. Birmingham reported about 4300 Broken, temp +9C.
>Montgomery had 3500 Scattered, +14C. Odds are, he could have just
>descended into warmer, clearer air, shed the ice, and flew on, a bit
>wiser and scareder(sp?). We'll never know, of course, and you can't
>argue with "success", but I have to wonder about this "pull the chute if
>anything is amiss, and let the chips fall where they may(so to speak)"
>mentality that the BRS types advocate. Someday, someone's going to get
>hurt, when they didn't have to.

Ok, so the PIREP shows severe icing at 7700 to 9000'. Ground temp at
Montgomery +14C. Assume 3 degree decrease per 1K feet and freezing
level may have been around 5000'. Temps below freezing and in clouds.

Now is that conducive to icing?

Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Wallace Berry > wrote:
>
>
>>Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
>>where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
>>out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
>>pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
>>uninjured.
>
>
> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
> anticipated.

Yes, it'll be fun to see the stats after a few more years of experience.
I'm still betting that the BRS system encourages more risk taking and
I'll bet that this will, in the end, overcome any safety advantage from
the chute and cause the overall safety record of the Cirrus to be as
bad, or even worse, than similar non-chute aircraft.

And for this you carry around extra weight, pay more money and have an
explosive device always onboard!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Darkwing wrote:

> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
>>>why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
>>>anticipated. Ron Lee
>>>
>>
>>Another point to consider, weather conditions on the ground at that time
>>were quite good. Birmingham reported about 4300 Broken, temp +9C.
>>Montgomery had 3500 Scattered, +14C. Odds are, he could have just
>>descended into warmer, clearer air, shed the ice, and flew on, a bit wiser
>>and scareder(sp?). We'll never know, of course, and you can't argue with
>>"success", but I have to wonder about this "pull the chute if anything is
>>amiss, and let the chips fall where they may(so to speak)" mentality that
>>the BRS types advocate. Someday, someone's going to get hurt, when they
>>didn't have to.
>>
>>Happy Flying!
>>Scott Skylane
>
>
>
> That's true in any situation and our Armchair Quarterbacking will always
> make sense after the fact. But if the thing truly did go out of control I
> don't think I would "hope" that a warmer lower level would shed the ice and
> allow me to regain control, assuming of course the wings stayed attached. I
> think I'd rather read that the chute "saved" the lives of 3 GA pilots and
> passengers instead of another GA plane crash in bad weather that caused the
> plane to "stall". The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a good PR
> story for GA.

Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for
GA overall.


Matt

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
> anticipated.

I am curious about the TKS system. Was the accident Cirrus equipped with a
TKS anti-ice system, as the SR22 models are these days?

--
Peter

[Darkwing]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Wallace Berry > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
>>>where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off out
>>>of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the pilot
>>>popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers uninjured.
>>
>>
>> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
>> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
>> anticipated.
>
> Yes, it'll be fun to see the stats after a few more years of experience.
> I'm still betting that the BRS system encourages more risk taking and I'll
> bet that this will, in the end, overcome any safety advantage from the
> chute and cause the overall safety record of the Cirrus to be as bad, or
> even worse, than similar non-chute aircraft.
>
> And for this you carry around extra weight, pay more money and have an
> explosive device always onboard!
>
> Matt


I would say an aircraft of similar build without a chute is the
Columbia/Lancair factory built planes. Comparing their safety records in 5
years should give a better indication if the chute makes a difference.

-----------------------------------
DW

[Ron Lee]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>I would say an aircraft of similar build without a chute is the
>Columbia/Lancair factory built planes. Comparing their safety records in 5
>years should give a better indication if the chute makes a difference.

Ultimately I bet pilot issues will be the main factor.

Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would say an aircraft of similar build without a chute is the
>>Columbia/Lancair factory built planes. Comparing their safety records in 5
>>years should give a better indication if the chute makes a difference.
>
>
> Ultimately I bet pilot issues will be the main factor.

I agree. The question in my mind is will the presence of the BRS affect
the pilot's judgement.

Matt

[Skywise]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Ron Lee wrote:
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would say an aircraft of similar build without a chute is the
>>>Columbia/Lancair factory built planes. Comparing their safety records
>>>in 5 years should give a better indication if the chute makes a
>>>difference.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately I bet pilot issues will be the main factor.
>
> I agree. The question in my mind is will the presence of the BRS affect
> the pilot's judgement.
>
> Matt

Is there a "when to pull the chute" guide or some sort of
specific training for these BRS equiped planes?

I mean, it seems logical that one wouldn't just intall a BRS in a
plane and hand it over to a pilot. I would think there would be
some sort of guidelines describing appropriate and inappropriate
situations for using the BRS.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Logajan]

Skywise > wrote:
> Is there a "when to pull the chute" guide or some sort of
> specific training for these BRS equiped planes?

Here's their aircraft information manual:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/SR20-002/pdf/13999-002InfoManualOct05.pdf

[Darkwing]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>> And the reports seem to glorify the BRS yet nothing is mentioned of
>> why the pilot entered icing conditions and if that should have been
>> anticipated.
>
> I am curious about the TKS system. Was the accident Cirrus equipped with
> a
> TKS anti-ice system, as the SR22 models are these days?
>
> --
> Peter

I believe the article said the Cirrus had no icing equipment.

--------------------------------------
DW

[Mike Schumann]

The bigger issue is whether pilots are taking risks with Cirrus planes that
they wouldn't otherwise take, because they know they have a BRS chute
available.

Mike Schumann

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would say an aircraft of similar build without a chute is the
>>>>Columbia/Lancair factory built planes. Comparing their safety records
>>>>in 5 years should give a better indication if the chute makes a
>>>>difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ultimately I bet pilot issues will be the main factor.
>>
>> I agree. The question in my mind is will the presence of the BRS affect
>> the pilot's judgement.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Is there a "when to pull the chute" guide or some sort of
> specific training for these BRS equiped planes?
>
> I mean, it seems logical that one wouldn't just intall a BRS in a
> plane and hand it over to a pilot. I would think there would be
> some sort of guidelines describing appropriate and inappropriate
> situations for using the BRS.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Darkwing]

"darthpup" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You think ice builds up slowly? Think again. In thirty to sixty
> seconds your wings can become unusable. Flying into clouds in the
> Winter. DDDuuuuuhhh
>

Never said it did.

----------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a good PR story for GA.
>
> I'd like to suggest an alternate interpretation: These ballistic
> chutes are good PR for ballistic chutes. They're poor PR for the 99%
> of planes that don't have them, and only reinforce the opinion in the
> minds of the public that small planes are inherently unsafe UNLESS they
> have chutes.
>
> A non-aviator sees one of these stories and doesn't think "Wow, I guess
> these planes are safer than I though!" They think "Wow, he sure was
> lucky that plane happened to have a parachute."
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL
>

Convincing the public of anything that goes against years of media preaching
is damn near impossible.

------------------------------------------
DW

[Ron Lee]

Skywise > wrote:
>
>Is there a "when to pull the chute" guide or some sort of
>specific training for these BRS equiped planes?
>
>I mean, it seems logical that one wouldn't just intall a BRS in a
>plane and hand it over to a pilot. I would think there would be
>some sort of guidelines describing appropriate and inappropriate
>situations for using the BRS.
>
>Brian

Simple. I can fly anywhere/anytime. If that creates a condition that
would normally result in aircraft breakup or uncontrolled impact with
terra firma....activate the BRS.

Ron Lee

[Skywise]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in
k.net:

> The bigger issue is whether pilots are taking risks with Cirrus planes
> that they wouldn't otherwise take, because they know they have a BRS
> chute available.
<Snipola>

Well, yeah. That's why I'm asking about training or guidelines.
Let me make an admitedly uneducated example, just being a sim
pilot at the moment....say I encounter icing conditions at 3000
AGL and start to lose control, I would try to recover the plane
until I got to the minimum recommended BRS deployment altitude
instead of just popping the thing right away. I guess what I'm
saying is, the BRS is meant as a last resort option, at least
that's the way I view it. If I've done everything I can to
rectify the situation and nothing's working, then pop the chute.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
> > where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
> > out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
> > pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
> > uninjured.
>
> Icing in Alabama, damn.
>
> -------------------------------------
> DW
>
>

Yeah man! Even in Dixie, it gets cold when you get high. Here in the
Auburn area I've flown through snow showers coming out of big ol'
cumulus clouds well into May.

Wallace

"I don't have an aircraft with a BRS (yet), but I wear an emergency
chute in my glider and my homebuilt".

[Dave Stadt]

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Friday, an iced up Cirrus came down under BRS. Just a bit northwest of
>> > where I live here in Alabama. According to the newspaper, it took off
>> > out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
>> > pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree. Pilot and passengers
>> > uninjured.
>>
>> Icing in Alabama, damn.
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>> DW
>>
>>
>
> Yeah man! Even in Dixie, it gets cold when you get high. Here in the
> Auburn area I've flown through snow showers coming out of big ol'
> cumulus clouds well into May.

Not to mention the ice storms that hit AL from time to time.

>
> Wallace
>
> "I don't have an aircraft with a BRS (yet), but I wear an emergency
> chute in my glider and my homebuilt".

[Thomas Borchert]

Wallace,

> it took off
> out of Birmingham and iced up climbing through clouds, stalled, and the
> pilot popped the BRS. Came down in a tree.
>

And they posted a pirep while hanging from the chute, according to Avweb:
PIREP: MGM UUA /OV SCD 270004/TM 2200/FL090/TP SR22/IC SVR ICG 077-090/RM
ACFT WAS DESCENDING BY PARACHUTE DUE TO SEVRE ICG BUILDUP.

Kinda cool...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
> was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for
> GA overall.
>

Yep, 3 dead would have been much better PR for GA. And the plane would
probably have shedded the ice while spinning through 5000, too. Great!

What's wrong with you guys?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:
> Darkwing wrote:
>> That's true in any situation and our Armchair Quarterbacking will always
>> make sense after the fact. But if the thing truly did go out of control I
>> don't think I would "hope" that a warmer lower level would shed the ice
>> and allow me to regain control, assuming of course the wings stayed
>> attached. I think I'd rather read that the chute "saved" the lives of 3
>> GA pilots and passengers instead of another GA plane crash in bad weather
>> that caused the plane to "stall". The chute, whatever your opinion as a
>> pilot, is a good PR story for GA.
>
> Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this was
> the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for GA
> overall.

How so? And how do you know it?

moo

[darthpup]

Death is good PR?????

[Ron Lee]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>> Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
>> was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for
>> GA overall.
>
>Yep, 3 dead would have been much better PR for GA. And the plane would
>probably have shedded the ice while spinning through 5000, too. Great!
>
>What's wrong with you guys?
>
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
the BRS crutch. What led that pilot to take off into icing conditions
that the plane could not handle? Since only a very small percentage
of aircraft have BRS-like systems, if hundreds more pilots did what
that pilot did then planes would be impacting ground with deadly
consequences. Since I know of no issues with the Cirrus aircraft when
flown in non-icing conditions, we have to evaluate if the pilot made a
potentially deadly error in flying that day. Prevent that sort of
error and we won't have to ask whether planes descending under a
parachute (possibly on top of someone eventually) is good or bad PR.

Ron Lee

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

Stupid pilot tricks have nothing to do at all with the chute. In fact,
GA pilots have managed to get themselves killed in a wide range of
stupid tricks since 1905 or so, thank you very much. Blaming the chute
in any way is a red herring.

Compare the accident stats of new Cessna 182 (and only the new ones)
with those of the Cirrus, like some publicatin recently did. They are
very similar. That possibly tells us something about what kind of pilot
can afford a new plane. It also tells us there is not really an issue
with the Cirrus, apart from pilot factors.

Oh, and the reaction to the Cirrus and their accidents here tells us a
lot about how pilots react to innovation. It tells a sad story, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Darthpup,

> Death is good PR?????
>

I was being ironic in response to the OP, who posted:

> plane to "stall". The chute, whatever your opinion as a pilot, is a
good PR
> story for GA.

Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR
for GA overall.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gwengler]

Here are some stats for the US (from the NTSB database):

New Cessna 182: Fatal accidents 11 (18 fatalities)
Cirrus: Fatal accidents 15 (32 fatalities)

For this to be meaningful one had to know the number of airplanes in
the US (I believe there are similar numbers for new C182 and Cirrus),
or the numbers of hours flown or anything else to make the two groups
comparable. Just from the above numbers, though, Cirri crashed 27%
more with fatal results than new Cessna 182S/T, and 44% more people got
killed.

I do not quite understand why people always compare Cirrus with C182.
The Cirrus is quite a bit more expensive, has a lot more horsepower,
and has a much sleeker wing which much higher wing loading. A more
suitable comparison IMHO to all the above parameters would be Mooneys
or Lancair/Columbias.

Gerd

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Stupid pilot tricks have nothing to do at all with the chute. In fact,
> GA pilots have managed to get themselves killed in a wide range of
> stupid tricks since 1905 or so, thank you very much. Blaming the chute
> in any way is a red herring.
>
> Compare the accident stats of new Cessna 182 (and only the new ones)
> with those of the Cirrus, like some publicatin recently did. They are
> very similar. That possibly tells us something about what kind of pilot
> can afford a new plane. It also tells us there is not really an issue
> with the Cirrus, apart from pilot factors.

It also tells you that the chute is providing no benefit with respect to
the accident rate.

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>>> Baloney. They may be good PR for Cirrus, and I've long suspected this
>>> was the only motivation behind including them, but they are lousy PR for
>>> GA overall.
>>
>>Yep, 3 dead would have been much better PR for GA. And the plane would
>>probably have shedded the ice while spinning through 5000, too. Great!
>>
>>What's wrong with you guys?
>>
>>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
> Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
> the BRS crutch.

"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
thrown back at you.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>>
>> Stupid pilot tricks have nothing to do at all with the chute. In fact, GA
>> pilots have managed to get themselves killed in a wide range of stupid
>> tricks since 1905 or so, thank you very much. Blaming the chute in any
>> way is a red herring. Compare the accident stats of new Cessna 182 (and
>> only the new ones) with those of the Cirrus, like some publicatin
>> recently did. They are very similar. That possibly tells us something
>> about what kind of pilot can afford a new plane. It also tells us there
>> is not really an issue with the Cirrus, apart from pilot factors.
>
> It also tells you that the chute is providing no benefit with respect to
> the accident rate.

Accident rate or injury rate? And, I think it's clear that few people here
believe that it helps much in the most typical types of accidents.

moo

[Kyle Boatright]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
k.net...
> The bigger issue is whether pilots are taking risks with Cirrus planes
> that they wouldn't otherwise take, because they know they have a BRS chute
> available.
>
> Mike Schumann

My take on the situation is that rational pilots will pop the chute in
situations where they *might* survive anyway, but where there is some chance
of getting killed. This means that more Cirrus will land under chute than
would have crashed otherwise.

For instance, he may work himself into a situation where he realizes that he
has an "X" percentage chance of killing himself, and a (100% -X%) of making
it to the ground using conventional means (i.e. no accident). At some
probability of killing himself, he's gonna pop the chute.

Let's say that chance is 10%, and his survival is guaranteed if he pops the
chute. So he pops the chute, wastes an airplane, and ends up in the papers.

Without the BRS, there was a 1 in 10 chance that he was going to make the
papers anyway and a 9 in 10 chance that he was just going to have a good
story to tell.

Assuming that every Cirrus pilot pops the chute at the 10% chance of a fatal
situation, we have 10 Cirri under chute and no fatalities. In other makes,
you'd have 9 examples of no story at all and one fatal crash.

[Ron Lee]

"Happy Dog" > wrote:
>>>What's wrong with you guys?
>>>
>>>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>>
>>
>> Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
>> the BRS crutch.
>
>"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
>thrown back at you.

I don't have to. I am making a comment about the BRS so the
discussion is about the BRS, not ADS-B, GPS, Cheap inertials, etc.

Ron Lee

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote:
>>>>What's wrong with you guys?
>>>>
>>>>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing Thomas. Some of use sense an issue that cannot be resolved by
>>> the BRS crutch.
>>
>>"Crutch"? Name some non-crutch recent innovations in GA and have this
>>thrown back at you.
>
> I don't have to. I am making a comment about the BRS so the
> discussion is about the BRS, not ADS-B, GPS, Cheap inertials, etc.

You are making an unjustified comment about the BRS. And I'm not surprised
that you don't even try to put some logic behind it. If you did, you'd find
that you're describing other innovations that nobody thinks of as crutches.
I suggest you use your superior judgment skills here and avoid a debate on
this.

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> Just from the above numbers,
>

They are meaningless, as you well know. The least you'd have to factor
in is fleet size. You would probably want to come up with a reasonable
estimate of hours flown, as is done regularly by aviation publication
safety reviews, and as was done in this case.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gwengler]

> as is done regularly by aviation publication safety reviews, and as was done in this case

Can you please quote the aviation publication safety review in "this
case"?

Gerd

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

I think it was Collins in "Flying". I'll try to find it in the
basement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)