Should I upgrade from Skylane to Cirrus SR20? (not mxmaniac infested)

On Jun 13, 11:26 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")

Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.

No surpises, on hints, no support for this "theory" whatsoever. My
statement is only based on my belief, which in turn is based on
accident reports I have read. For example, the guy who got into ice
at 16,000 ft. with a Cirrus, lost control, and either didn't pull or
pulled at a speed too high (chute ripped to pieces) - I forgot.
Perhaps the Lidle crash in NYC formed my belief, as did two or three
accident discussions from the Flying magazine.
The OP of the infested thread kinda went the same way - as if mountain
flying was somehow safer with a ballistic parachute. This will not
prevent one box canyon accident, for example. I have a hard time
believing that a pilot will pull the chute if he gets in a serious
downdraft in the mountains.

Gerd

On 6/13/2007 12:13:23 PM, gwengler wrote:

For example, the guy who got into ice
at 16,000 ft. with a Cirrus, lost control, and either didn't pull or
pulled at a speed too high (chute ripped to pieces) - I forgot.

In this accident, a case could also be made for the pilot taking extra risks
due to the installed TKS anti-icing system.

--
Peter

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:26:16 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

In this accident, a case could also be made for the pilot taking extra
risks due to the installed TKS anti-icing system.

According to what I just read in some magazine, the forecast had no
mention of ice. However, perhaps the TKS lulled the pilot when he first
saw it forming.

- Andrew

Gwengler,

My
statement is only based on my belief


Ah! I'm not much into beliefs.

One thing you say has me stumped, though: The Lidle accident has
exactly zip to do with the presence of the chute. There is simply no
possible connection. Clue me in, please!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jun 14, 4:58 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Ah! I'm not much into beliefs.

One thing you say has me stumped, though: The Lidle accident has
exactly zip to do with the presence of the chute. There is simply no
possible connection. Clue me in, please!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

Don't you believe that Cirrus airplanes are superior to Cessna
airplanes? Don't you believe that GA pilots are adverse to new
technologies? (I am too lazy to pull up quotes from you on this in
the past). Anyway, so much about beliefs.
The Lidle accident serves as an example for me how someone can be
lulled into a false sense of safety by wrongfully believing that there
will be always a way out. That leads automatically to complacency
which is a dangerous thing, especially for pilots. So, I believe
(from interviews with Lidle) that he thought he had a super-safe
airplane because of the chute. I believe that this was a contributing
factor to the accident. No factual proofs here, just beliefs - just
as yours.

Gerd

Gwengler,

Don't you believe that Cirrus airplanes are superior to Cessna
airplanes?

No. You won't find a quote like that from me, either. It's all a matter
of mission requirements, IMHO.

I just happen to think the facts do not bear out that Ciruus airplanes
are inferior to Cessna - yet you read statements to that effect here
quite a lot.

Don't you believe that GA pilots are adverse to new
technologies?

No. I see that tendency quite clearly in posts here, in magazine
articles and discussions with fellow pilots. I can back that claim up
with fact. No believing required.

As for Lidle, I see what you're getting at, and sadly, you may be
right. But, as someone said in a similar discussion on another forum:
"Pilots who think that way will probably do something stupid with or
without a chute."

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Gwengler,

a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")


Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.


Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus was
because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
arose.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Gwengler,

a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")


Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.


Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus
was
because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
arose.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

No, although it is interesting, and somewhat troubling, psychology.

Peter

Marty,

Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus was
because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
arose.


Non sequitur!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Gwengler,

a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")


Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.

Here's an interesting theory that apparently has at least some
experimental validation. Of course, since it's a psychology
thing, there's no agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis

Mike Beede