On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:32:26 GMT, Jose wrote:

... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies.

Well, not so fast. The ones that stick out in my mind (of course not a
statistical sample by any means!) involved parachuting into a fuel tank
farm (averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
running) and parachuting into water (losing the cushioning ability of
the landing gear). Once you pull the handle, you have little or no
control over the outcome.

All in all, I would tend to doubt the claim that it "ensures survival in
a wide variety of emergencies".

Yes, bad choice of words on my part. Better would be, maximizes chance of
survival in a wider variety of emergencies.

Certainly there are places you *don't* want to set down on, when you're lacking
control under a parachute. But if it were a choice between landing on a tank
farm under canopy or riding a plane down with a wing missing, I think I'd take
the tank farm.

I cannot think of a *single* case where I wouldn't want the OPTION of activating
an airframe parachute. And that's the point....it's better to have it and not
need it, than to need it and not have it.

I can think of reasons I'd take other actions in particular situations. And
certainly understand that carrying such a chute has performance disadvantages.
I haven't opted for one, but I don't fault folks who decide otherwise.

Ron Wanttaja