Another SR22

I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas.

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.
It's like the section of the road where a pedestrian had been killed
jaywalking. A crossing with lights markings etc. was instituted and
the number of accidents rose immediately. That's because people
crossing were not careful anymore as they were when jaywalking.

Gerd

Gwengler,

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes!

Says who?

Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.

Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

I knew you couldn't let this go. Anyway:
You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes!

Says who?

With "this" I meant that Cirrus and comparable airplanes have the same
accident rates. From the Cirrus website: "CAPS™ revolutionized
general aviation safety by providing an alternative measure of safety
to occupants, similar in theory to the role of airbags in automobiles.
No other certified general aviation aircraft manufacturer in the world
provides this safety feature as standard equipment."
I can only understand the notion of "revolutionized general aviation
safety" as having a better accident record than other manufacturers.
Therefore, as a direct answer to your question, Cirrus says so.

Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.

Gerd

Gwengler,

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.


I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gwengler,

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.


I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

While that has happened there have also been cases where non-pilots were
talked down when the exact same thing happened to the pilot. The difference
being that the plane was flyable again when landed without a chute.

Airsafety had a report earlier this year of a non-pilot landing a Twin
Commander but the link is broken.

http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW060215A.pdf


AOPA has http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pinch_hitter/flash.cfm which if you are a
non-pilot and fly with a GA pilot with any regularity you should check out.



"BDS" wrote in message
...
There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of
a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gwengler,

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.


I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
While that has happened there have also been cases where non-pilots were
talked down when the exact same thing happened to the pilot. The
difference being that the plane was flyable again when landed without a
chute.

Airsafety had a report earlier this year of a non-pilot landing a Twin
Commander but the link is broken.

http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW060215A.pdf


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X00588&key=1

There was a case last year IIRC where a Cirrus popped the chute
because it was all iced up. The guy even filed a PIREP on the way
down...

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:40 GMT, "BDS" wrote:

There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gwengler,

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.


I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bds,

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all.


Oh, I'm sure there is. It's just that the chute by itself doesn't make
the plane safer, as the quoted marketing blurb alluded. It takes a
pilot to do that. And pilots often don't do the right thing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

Oh, I'm sure there is. It's just that the chute by itself doesn't make
the plane safer, as the quoted marketing blurb alluded.

Actually, it does. At least, I tend to believe so, after having lost
three friends in midairs (two events).

Stefan