More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer"

Happy Dog wrote:

But*almost*every*non-pilot*pax*I*know*is*in
love with the idea.

Because of the role I play in my club, I think a lot about failure scenarios
and backups. If only the statistics for twins were better...laugh.

One scenario for the flying family is the incapacitated pilot. My
"solution" was to get my wife into PPL training. But would it not be
easier (and, perhaps even safer) to train someone to use a BRS?

I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

- Andrew

Not having the BRS must make selling a Columbia against a Cirrus a
tough proposition I'll bet. I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort

wrote:

I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort

I have lost friends in a midair. Had they had a BRS, then they would
most probably still live.

Stefan

"most probably"...

If the collision had taken place on the wing or anywhere other than the
fuselage, then maybe. But a direct hit to where the pilot was sitting,
no parachute could have helped any.

The chances of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the
chances to survive a car accident. Except most cars have re-inforced
steel girders, crumple zones, airbags, etc. An airplane is just a piece
of flimsy light-weight alumnium.

On 11 Nov 2005 17:02:48 -0800, "buttman" wrote:



The chances of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the
chances to survive a car accident.

All right, we have a new winner for most ridiculous statistic of the
year...

Michael

"Andrew Gideon"

But almost every non-pilot pax I know is in
love with the idea.

Because of the role I play in my club, I think a lot about failure
scenarios
and backups. If only the statistics for twins were better...laugh.

One scenario for the flying family is the incapacitated pilot. My
"solution" was to get my wife into PPL training. But would it not be
easier (and, perhaps even safer) to train someone to use a BRS?

I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

I intend to. It's a pretty straight forward procedure and way easier than
landing. Although I know of a case where a passenger, with no previous
training, in a 172 (I think), was talked down to a successful landing.
(That being one which one walks away from.)

There was a SR-22 pilot who pulled the chute over the Hudson after he
briefly lost consciousness. He sustained serious back injuries because the
landing gear doesn't take its share of the impact in a ditching. Wonder if
Cirrus thought of that before?

moo

buttman wrote:

"most probably"...

Yes, most probably. Still much better than no chance, in my opinion.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote
wrote:

I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort

I have lost friends in a midair. Had they had a BRS, then they would most
probably still live.

That's possible. But unlikely. As I said before, I'm light a few grand and
heavy 35 pounds just to make some passengers happy and I'm not sacrificing
any other safety option in favour of it. (Single button activated autopilot
to the nearest suitable airport / emergency communication with ATC /
autoland isn't available yet.) I don't feel that it's a good cost vs.
benefit measure if safety is the only concern. For the sport pilot, just
spending the same amount on recurring training would likely yield better
accident and survival stats.

moo

I'm sure it's similar to a chute that a 'meat missile wears. Depending on
the material, human 'chutes have to be repacked every 60 to 120 days. And, I
have seen how the 'chutes on a Cirrus has to be packed, it's a ram that
shoves it into it's tube. It can't be packed by hand because they have put
such a large 'chute into such a small container. Just seems like it would be
more of a liability and a PITA than anything.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Michael Ware"wrote:


I'll tell ya' where they can pack that 'chute.

Amen.

Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years
and
inspected/overhauled?

If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
parachute or not.