"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
[...]
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that BRS has led to the loss of a hundred
or so aircraft? Surely many or most of those aircraft could have been
flown to a safe landing.

Wow. And I thought *I* was cynical.

It's probably safe to say that at least in some of the cases, use of the BRS
was not necessary. But airframes are replaceable. Human life is not.
Furthermore, making that statement assumes that the pilot in question would
have landed safely. Just because *a* pilot may have been able to land the
airplane safely, that doesn't mean *that* pilot would have been able to.

My biggest concern is that once the BRS has been deployed, there's no
control over where you land. But there have been enough examples of pilots
choosing very poor emergency landing sites, where they endanger the life or
property of innocent bystanders, to reassure me that the BRS is unlikely to
increase this risk in any significant way.

I'm unlikely to fly an airplane with a BRS installed, but for those who feel
it's an important safety feature, I don't see any justification for
questioning that decision, or for mischaracterizing the technology as
somehow detrimental to aviation generally.

Pete