Recovery parachutes again!

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
But the guy woke up from an unexplained blackout (later found to
be from a brain tumor) to find his plane diving to the ground above Vne
and
with weakness in one of his legs

But he recovered first. Then he pulled the chute.

Had he pulled it before recovery, I wouldn't have the same questions.

Why not? Assume for a moment that you wake up, find yourself in an airplane
that's diving at above Vne. What's your VERY first reaction? Do your
piloting instincts kick in and cause you to try to recover from the dive?
Or do you sit there and think, "oh, right...I've got a BRS...I'll deploy
that". Assuming the latter, do you also pause to recall at what speed the
BRS can be deployed safely?

For most pilots, I suspect the answer is the former. But once you've
recovered, what's the next thing you think about? I know what I'd think
about: how did I get here? I had no warning I was about the lose
consciousness. It might happen again. I still won't have any warning.
What if it happens while I'm landing? The result would probably be fatal.
Wouldn't it make more sense to deploy the BRS while I am still conscious? I
don't trust myself to try to land the plane; for all I know, I'll be
unconscious in a matter of seconds, and I need to use those seconds in the
most productive way I can think of.

Frankly, it's this kind of second-guessing of pilots who use the BRS that
really irks me. The people second-guessing weren't there. They weren't in
the situation, they have no idea what the event was like.

Is it possible there was a different way to address the issue? Sure,
anything's possible. But "pilot in command" means just that. If you expect
others to respect your right and obligation as PIC to take whatever actions
you deem necessary for the safety of the flight, you need to offer that same
respect to other pilots as well. The pilot used an installed safety device,
in the manner in which it was designed to be used, and there was a
successful outcome in terms of saving the life of the occupant of the
airplane. What more can you ask? (That's a rhetorical question, by the
way...I know all you other Usenetters out there are just chomping at the bit
to post all your other questions...don't bother).

Pete

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, but after a moment's thought. Not after a fraction of a second.

First you complain that the guy thought about it? Then you complain that
someone might do it without thinking about it?

Huh?

But once you've
recovered, what's the next thing you think about? I know what I'd think
about: how did I get here? I had no warning I was about the lose
consciousness. It might happen again. I still won't have any warning.
What if it happens while I'm landing? The result would probably be fatal.
Wouldn't it make more sense to deploy the BRS while I am still conscious? I
don't trust myself to try to land the plane; for all I know, I'll be
unconscious in a matter of seconds, and I need to use those seconds in the
most productive way I can think of.

Well, he didn't indicate that these were the reasons for pulling the
chute. He indicated other reasons.

Yes, but after a moment's thought. Not after a fraction of a second.

First you complain that the guy thought about it? Then you complain that
someone might do it without thinking about it?

Again, I'm not "complaining" about what the pilot =did=. I'm commenting
on the downside of the BRS and the way it's supposed to be used. (and
he stated that he gave it a fraction of a second thought - I would give
it a moment's thought if I had already recovered... at least I hope I would)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Dale" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Icebound" wrote:


"Save the passengers but Don't try to save the plane"

If you save the airplane you can assume the passengers will also be
saved.


You may be quite correct, but they wanted us to think about it in a
different way:

IIRC, it was something like this:

Rule 1: Save the passengers and crew.
Observation 1-A: In almost all cases, the plane will be saved as a
consequence of following rule 1.
Observation 1-B: In those rare cases where the safety of the plane is in
doubt, Rule 1 must take precedence. Trying to save the plane may jeopardize
the ability to follow Rule 1...while it does not guarantee actually *saving*
the plane.

"Peter Duniho"
"Jose" wrote in message
But the guy woke up from an unexplained blackout (later found to
be from a brain tumor) to find his plane diving to the ground above Vne
and with weakness in one of his legs
But he recovered first. Then he pulled the chute.
Had he pulled it before recovery, I wouldn't have the same questions.

Why not? Assume for a moment that you wake up, find yourself in an
airplane that's diving at above Vne. What's your VERY first reaction? Do
your piloting instincts kick in and cause you to try to recover from the
dive? Or do you sit there and think, "oh, right...I've got a BRS...I'll
deploy that". Assuming the latter, do you also pause to recall at what
speed the BRS can be deployed safely?

As you're aware, recovery from LOC is not a binary event like switching on a
light. The first order is to control the aircraft and get some time to
think. I've been out cold twice and nearly there a few other times. I had
company so there wasn't a safety issue. I was deliberately trying to
witness, first hand, the effects of LOC and near-LOC. The spooky part is
the confusion when waking up. There was a period of a few seconds where I
couldn't tell if I was flying or dreaming. But, after a few tries, it was
pretty easy to quickly focus on the instruments and act accordingly. (That
included a turn toward the nearest field.) But, even if one manages to get
really good at it, there's was still another fifteen or twenty seconds of
fogginess before complete situational awareness is possible. Recognition of
that fact wasn't so easy. I would be concerned about any decision making
during that period. I am more concerned about my ability to resist making
any decision until I know what's going on (and I consider a conclusion that
I don't know what's going on sort of knowing what's going on) than my
ability to quickly get the thing flying safely again. Odd stuff, LOC.

moo

John Clear wrote:

In this case, from the limited information that has come out, it
seems like the pilot just panicked because of whatever medical
condition he had. It would be interesting to hear if the condition
was disclosed on his last medical.

John
This was discussed in another Rec.av. forum. He had a transient loss of
consciousness. He awoke in an unusual attitude. He had no warning of
this blackout, and had no idea if it was about to recur.. and he had
some new numbness to one leg (he was probably thinking - I am having a
stroke and I'm prolly gonna black out again).

On exam at the hospital, he was diagnosed with a previously undiscovered
brain tumor. You cant report something on a medical if you dont know
about it.

Dave

Denny wrote:
.. It has been my impression that
deploying the chute causes irrepairable damage to the hull..


No... not the deployment.. the landing. And even that isn't always the
case. There has been a deployment or two where the plane landed on brush
or trees, cushioning the landing, and the plane was salvageable.

The grooves where the chute straps lie on the airframe are a matter of
putting a single layer of fiberglass over to repair (after the chute is
re-installed).

Dave

If you landed and your alive your passngers are alive who cares if you
pulled the BRS, your alive thats all that matters. The plane is a material
object it means nothing. My thought anyone who pulls that cord and lives did
it for the right reason.

Beat me to it...

But then....... just maybe.....

Dave


On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:57:47 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote
When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I do believe that the correct word is "bawled"...:-)

Bob Moore

My instructor told me ...

"Never try to save an airplane that is trying to kill
you......"


Dave



On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:15:38 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote:


"Dale" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Icebound" wrote:


"Save the passengers but Don't try to save the plane"

If you save the airplane you can assume the passengers will also be
saved.


You may be quite correct, but they wanted us to think about it in a
different way:

IIRC, it was something like this:

Rule 1: Save the passengers and crew.
Observation 1-A: In almost all cases, the plane will be saved as a
consequence of following rule 1.
Observation 1-B: In those rare cases where the safety of the plane is in
doubt, Rule 1 must take precedence. Trying to save the plane may jeopardize
the ability to follow Rule 1...while it does not guarantee actually *saving*
the plane.