Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
that I made. Sounds like a Democrat

Ron Lee

"C J Campbell" wrote:


"Rick Durden" wrote in message
om...
Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go
back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
'20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
the mail parachutes).

If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that
every safety improvement is a bad thing.

If these guys had their way, cars would instead of airbags have a sharp
spear embedded in the steering column which would impale any driver who was
so careless as to get into an accident.

Their attitude seems to be that a small bomb should be installed in every
airplane so that anyone who is so thoughtless as to crash is guaranteed to
be scattered in small pieces over a wide area.

(Michael) wrote:

(Rick Durden) wrote
It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...

I find it highly counterproductive than when someone starts asking the
hard questions, he is immediately labeled as anti-safety. I think
these questions need to be asked.

Michael

Well said Michael. Now I will add additional info to refute Durden's
assertion that I am anti-safety. I started skydiving in the mid-70s.
One main malfunction where I had to deploy my reserve according to my
training. I would do it again today under the same circumstances.

I scuba dive. That also has an element of risk but I have mitigated
that risk with good equipment, mucho training (improves safety and
ability to handle problems properly...not bolting to the surface (or
pulling the handle)).

And I fly. I mantain contact with the local approach control when
flying above my local airport due to safety concerns of making
undesired contact with commercial jets.

I took a mountain flying course last year before I ever ventured into
the Rockies. Sounds like a safety minded pilot to me.

I have cancelled many flights in the summer afternoon because of
building rain cells. I have see too many strong gust fronts and see
others risk their safety because of them to risk it myself. Sounds
like a safe attitude on my part.

I have diverted to another airport because of rain over my airport.
Maybe a wussy move...but in my opinion a safe decision.

I could go on, but Mr Durden, you are 100% wrong about me being
"anti-safety". By questioning the pilot's role in these incidents, my
view is more likely to achieve real reductions in lost lives that
adopting a "pull the handle" approach.

Ron Lee

Howdy!

In article ,
Michael wrote:
"Bill Denton" wrote

[snip ABS and police]

The accident rate returned to close to previous levels.

Yes, it's a great analogy. A supposed safety advance was introduced
into the cars. After retraining, the result was almost as safe (not
safer) as what it replaced, and more expensive to boot. Without
retraining, it was a lot more dangerous. What was the advantage
again?

Would you care to cite some independent corroboration for the columny you
offer? What is "less safe" about ABS?

Bill Denton spoke of how it caused *police officers* problems, but not
the general driving public.

Or are you just opposed to any safety advance?

And this is analogous to the Cirrus situation. It requires retraining, but
given the proper training it's not an especially dangerous aircraft...

But it's supposed to be a safer aircraft than what we fly. It was
supposedly designed for safety. Now we think that maybe with
sufficient retraining it won't be especially dangerous.

....no more dangerous than any other light single...or are you just picking
out a phrase to hilight it with (implied) scare quotes? Bad troll. No
biscuit.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Thomas, I see your point. Let's take it to an extreme. I am a pilot
flying a parachute equipped plane. I have to use an airports
facilities really, really bad. I see an airport under me. I decide
the best way down is to deploy the parachute so that the leather seats
are not ruined. The plane is destroyed but it was my call and my call
alone that my course of action was right.

You have no right to respond negatively to my course of action because
only I and I alone was there to assess all the factors involved.

Well, your decision to pull the handle was yours and yours alone to make.
Once you did it, there was no going back. If you don't share your true
reason, we won't be able to point and laugh. On the other hand, if there is
a formal investigation into the condition of the airplane, it may be
discerned that nothing was wrong.

Of course, your scenario elides the (probably) quicker way to get to those
facilities -- flying the airplane onto the runway and taxiing to the FBO,
but you had a point to make...

However, I will say that I was an idiot.

Well...you know yourself best...

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee top-posted his remark 75 lines away from
what he responded to:

Greg, if you are the type pilot who relies upon such a system instead
of proper flight planning and judgment to avoid potentially fatal
situations, I have no desire to ever fly in an aircraft with you as
PIC. Of course these comments may or may not apply to these cases.

You ASSume that "thinking parachutes may be a good thing" therefore
means a blind reliance on same and a disregard of "proper flight
planning and judgement". Or at least you give that impression. I'm
curious how you come to these conclusions.

I am merely raising points to consider and a few of you are going
postal misinterpreting my comments. Makes me wonder of you are
dealers.

No. You are making pretty strong and dogmatic claims that BRS is a
dangerous crutch -- pretty much the same claims that delayed the
introduction of parachutes into military aviation, and just as valid.
Now you use your outside voice to lay down a lame ad hominem attack
on those who disagree with your position. Get a life.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Michael, your perception of my post is so off base as to be
irrelevant. Go reread my posts with an open mind and try to fathom
whay I was saying.

Would you care to point out more clearly where I misspeak? If your
words don't mean what the seem to mean on a plain reading, then
perhaps you need to reconsider how you express yourself.

If you took the time to address specific points in context instead
of dropping a vague remark at the top (top posting bad), placing
the *burden* on your readers to figure out what you are responding
to, perhaps you might add some clarity. But you insist on putting
your words out of context, where others can easily misconstrue them.

You wrote and I responded:
Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.

You do not address how your claims are at all consistent with one-another.

I'm not going to repeat the rest -- if you can't be bothered to address
the concerns, but feel it necessary to make a vague response, you imply
agreement.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
that I made. Sounds like a Democrat

What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
call it a crutch.

You sound sad.

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
(Michael) wrote:

(Rick Durden) wrote
It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...

I find it highly counterproductive than when someone starts asking the
hard questions, he is immediately labeled as anti-safety. I think
these questions need to be asked.

It is useful to examine the use of BRS to discern how the pilot came to
the decision to deploy. Given the relative newness of BRS in GA, there is
little actual data on how one decides when it is time to pull the handle.
That examination can include "hard questions" without prejudging the
pilot. Wondering out loud if it "is a last resort for pilot incompetence"
or characterizing it as a "crutch" is not part of constructively
considering the matter. It displays a disdain for the tool that suggests
an anti-safety perspective.

Michael

Well said Michael. Now I will add additional info to refute Durden's
assertion that I am anti-safety. I started skydiving in the mid-70s.
One main malfunction where I had to deploy my reserve according to my
training. I would do it again today under the same circumstances.

[snip declamation]

When your declamation is considered in consort with your statements in
this thread, it comes across as "but I have friends who are black/gay/
republicans".

I could go on, but Mr Durden, you are 100% wrong about me being
"anti-safety". By questioning the pilot's role in these incidents, my
view is more likely to achieve real reductions in lost lives that
adopting a "pull the handle" approach.

You don't question the pilot's roles so much as you insinuate that they
exhibited questionable judgement and relied on a crutch as a substitute
for good pilotage and flying judgement. You prejudge the pilots and you
prejudge the tools they used.

It is entirely possible that either or both of those pilots were hasty
in resorting to the BRS, but none of us have the information needed
to draw that conclusion. You seem to disagree.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

(Michael Houghton) wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
that I made. Sounds like a Democrat

What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
call it a crutch.

MIchael, I said "I wonder". That is not a definitive statement. It
raises an issue that is worth discussing about what really led to the
deployment of the parachute. See how you are misreading my posts.
That is what is sad.

You sound sad.

Actually I am quite happy and well adjusted.. Do some of you folks
always react this way with points of view that are different than your
own?

Ron Lee

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

(Ron Lee) writes:

(Michael Houghton) wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Careful CJ, you are reacting to Durden's incorrect assessment of posts
that I made. Sounds like a Democrat

What is incorrect about Rick Durden's assessment of your posts? You harp
on how CAPS is a "crutch". Right up front, you said:

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

You immediately question the competence of the pilots. You insist that
the pilots need better training to avoid getting into situation where they
might be tempted (my word) to pull the handle instead of flying out of
trouble like a manly man (my words again). Rick calls you on it citing
historical reactions to the introduction of last-ditch safety equipment
whose use is the ultimate in giving-up without conceding death. You
call it a crutch.

MIchael, I said "I wonder". That is not a definitive statement. It
raises an issue that is worth discussing about what really led to the
deployment of the parachute. See how you are misreading my posts.
That is what is sad.

So, if I say "I wonder if Ron is a pedophile", that's okay, because I
said "I wonder"? Sorry, but publicly saying you wonder about
something is a public accusation, and shouldn't be made casually.
Public wondering must be reserved for situations where you have some
legitemate *cause* to wonder.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/