On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:18:38 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.

I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.

Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address
are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY
surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the
presence of the parachute.

I think that the type of event the parachute is intended for would likely be an
accident in a non-chute-equipped airplane, as well. Hence the accident rate
*shouldn't* be different... but there hopefully would be an advantage in the
fatality rate.

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute. Whether one is willing to
trade *having* that option for increased useful load, more cabin space, or even
improved low-speed handling characteristics is just another example of the kinds
of decisions an airplane buyer must make.

I don't fault a pilot choosing to opt for an airplane with a chute, any more
than I would fault one for selecting a plane with retractable gear. It's their
money. The chute *does* work; it *can* lower the plane to the ground with less
than life-threatening injuries to the occupants. People buy it for peace of
mind, few, if any, expect they'll ever actually have to use it.

Ron Wanttaja