will this fly?

Your own statemant, " I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of
flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise" provides evidence of
just what Colin is saying, which is not at all what you're trying to put
into his mouth.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
...
Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
are insufficient to support it.

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."

"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.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

In a previous article, ET said:
"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:
Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an
SR-22 because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.

My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so
I'm certain I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would
an SR-22 with this system still be as limited as your statement
suggests??

The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known
icing conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested.
Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
if you have pireps of no icing.



Thanks (to you and the others that replied),... as I said, I'm very much
an aviation newbie.... that makes sense.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

In a previous article, "Colin Kingsbury" said:
"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 that is NOT a CFIT accident, I don't see how it could change his
mind.

Here's a little hint for you: An inadvertent "right, flat spin" is not
"Controlled".

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a
battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
- Calvin discovers Usenet

Duh! But a flat spin entered at 5000 AGL is a perfect scenario for popping
the cork, and yet it didn't happen. Whatever the reason it should give
anyone pause.

This all started with talk about icing- now if you ice a plane up real bad,
there's a chance of stalling and spinning or some other weird failure like
tailplane stalling leading to a really weird loss of control. Now if the
'chute didn't save these guys from spinning the plane in from a mile up on a
sunny day, what's to say it should do any better when you're sweating lead
in the clouds?

-cwk.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Colin Kingsbury" said:
"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 that is NOT a CFIT accident, I don't see how it could change his
mind.

Here's a little hint for you: An inadvertent "right, flat spin" is not
"Controlled".

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.

OK, Mick, then do you agree with Colin that having a chute makes a pilot
less safe? And more likely to have a CFIT accident? That's what Colin
said. We are not talking about what I said, although some of you keep
pointing to it as if it were proof of something.

And, by the way, all I said is that TKS and the chute would allow me to make
a lot of flights I would otherwise pass up. In my non-deiced plane. Duh.

"Mick Ruthven" wrote in message
. com...
Your own statemant, " I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of
flights that would keep me on the ground otherwise" provides evidence of
just what Colin is saying, which is not at all what you're trying to put
into his mouth.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
...
Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't
explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the
only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition
it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the
statistics
are insufficient to support it.

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."

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
newsX4Bb.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.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to

evaluate

and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt


OK, You make a good point and I agree with you.

Mike
MU-2

So when do I get a ride in your MU-2? :-)


Matt

Dan Thompson wrote:
Even if the chute only added "perceived" safety, that still doesn't explain
how anyone would be more likely to accidentally fly a perfectly good
airplane into the ground (CFIT) because he had one. CFIT is about the only
crash scenario where the chute would not be helpful, since by definition it
comes as a complete surprise to the pilot. So having a chute could not
possibly encourage, much less cause, CFIT.

So logically your hypothesis makes no sense, and you concede the statistics
are insufficient to support it.

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."

I think his point was that if having the chute causes a pilot to have a
more cavalier attitude "in general" then this will increase the
likelihood of accidents of ALL forms, not just those where the chute
might help. I tend to think this IS a sound argument, albeit probably
not yet supported by enough data. Attitude and judgment are key to safe
piloting. If either is deficient, bad things will tend to result.


Matt