"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane owners
than I do.



"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
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