Fire or no fire, your choices are the same. Obviously if the terrain is
good for an off-airport landing, you are going to land it normally and the
chute would not be considered at all. So we assume the terrain is hostile
in this scenario. You can land with forward speed of close to stall, i.e.,
6o knots, or land with almost 0 forward speed. The former gets you on the
ground and to a chance to get out of the burning plane faster, but you have
the same hostile terrain risks you would have were you not on fire. The
latter exposes you to the fire a little longer, assuming you get the chute
out at close to minimum effective altitude. It gets down to how bad is the
fire vs. how bad is the terrain.
"Kevin" wrote in message
news
X4Bb.61314$_M.294118@attbi_s54...
Colin Kingsbury wrote:
"Dan Thompson" wrote in message news:SAZAb.19
CFIT is about the only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful,
Read this and tell me if you still feel the same:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X00613&key=1
since by definition it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.
Well, why does CFIT happen, anyway? Generally speaking it's because of
pilots flying into conditions they shouldn't, whether that's visual
flight
into IMC or a rated pilot getting disoriented in tougher conditions than
he's prepared to handle. The one thing they all have in common was a
comfort
factor that things would turn out all right.
Traditionally in GA, once you were up in the air your only choice was to
bring that airplane back to earth safely, or die. There is no middle
ground!
This is in my mind the single most essential fact of aviation. CAPS
changes
that by offering, in some cases, an escape route once available only to
the
military and a very few others.
This will increase people's comfort factors, period. Don't tell me it
doesn't, because if it didn't Cirrus wouldn't offer a feature that adds
plenty of cost but doesn't make the plane fly any faster. It adds
comfort
because it adds real safety, but in a very specific way. CFIT and
disorientation on approach in weather kill lots of pilots every year,
and
it's not likely CAPS will help in all but a few of thse situations. But
it
will make people feel more comfortable, in some cases creating comfort
when
it is not appropriate.
So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
are insufficient to support it.
If you think that having a parachute will not make some people think
they're
safer than they are, then what we have is a disagreement on how good
peoples' decision-making skills are. I think logic and statistics are on
my
side there.
My econometrics professor was fond of saying, "If you torture the data
long
enough, they will eventually confess to anything." Statistics is a
useful
tool but will not provide the answer to every question.
I think you are trying to rationalize a reason to not want a chute on
your
plane, kind of the way people originally wanted a reason not to wear
seat
belts in their cars. "If I wear this seatbelt, I'll think I'm more
safe,
then I might drive more carelessly, and in the end be less safe. Better
be
safe and not buckle up."
Your seatbelt breaks; you have to drive the car 50 miles to get it
fixed. I
bet you will drive more carefully than normal, even if you are normally
a
very careful driver. Does this mean you are an unsafe driver normally?
It
means simply that you are human.
Wearing seatbelts makes sense because there are many accidents that are
not
caused by our own actions. Even the safest drivers get rearended by
yahoos
and sideswiped by road-ragers. Likewise, engines fail in IMC at night,
wings
fall off, and pilots have heart attacks. There are plenty of reasons to
want
a parachute on your airplane, and I look forward to the day that I will
have
one. But don't tell me it doesn't create a false sense of security!
Best,
-cwk.
You would probally be better off wearing a ram-air type parachute. Then
if you had a fire or other failure you would not have to ride the plane
down. The Cirrus system would not do much good if the plane was on fire.