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."



"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dan,

The causal connection is that the perceived safety of the 'chute causes
people to attempt flights they otherwise wouldn't. Or, as you wrote, "I
think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that would keep me
on
the ground otherwise."

It's true that the Cirrus fleet is small, and I'll agree it's too soon to
make sound statistical statements. My opinion is thus just that. I counted
14 accidents in the NTSB database from 1999-2003, with one being a factory
test pilot. It could just be a case of clustering, but it's certainly not
good. Reading the reports, I had a "what the @#$! was he thinking"
reaction
to at least half of them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "If anything goes wrong
I'll just pull that lever" is what at least some of them were thinking.
The
irony here is that a "safer" airplane may in the short run turn out to be
more accident-prone precisely because the perceived safety is higher than
the actual safety.

I certainly hope the accident rates in the Cirrus regress to the mean,
because I want to see innovation and lower costs and higher capabilities
and
balh blah blah. Ultimately it all comes down to pilots to take their
flying
more seriously. While the airlines have a harder time with each passing
year
of finding new ways to break airplanes, we in GA seem quite happy sticking
to old-fashioned but still-effective methods.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
m...
How is it that having a chute could have a causal connection to
accidentally
flying the airplane into a mountain? Or blowing the altitude on an
instrument approach? Or any other CFIT scenario? Also I challenge your
statement that the "CFIT rates are so high" for Cirrus. I have heard
that
there are only a 1000 Cirrus's flying so far, so I can't see how there
would
be any reasonable conclusion that could be made yet due to too few data
points.


"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message