"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash writes:

You said:

"I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute
deployed is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could
manage by actually flying the aircraft."

In short, you directly said that a competent pilot flying the aircraft
could not come anywhere close to 1700fpm. This is blatantly wrong.

No, I said that 1700 fpm greatly exceeds what a pilot could limit the
descent
rate to if he actually flew the aircraft. I thought that would be clear in
context. Why would the pilot want to hit the ground at greater than 1700
fpm?

Anthony,

I took the trouble to read back and, as you know, that is not exactly what
you said.

I really don't know the minimum power off descent rate of the cirrus,
windmilling or idling, and that by itself is not particularly usefull in the
successfull landing of either an aircraft or a simulator. You have known
that for a long time because the basic numbers and procedures are similar.
You also know the circumstance in which stabilization at minimum sink is
recommended as the best means to minimize the effect of a crash, because it
is just too frequently quoted and published for you to have missed.

You also know that the parachute was not added as a fix for a problem; but
was part of the original concept and was a reason that spin entry and
recovery were not part of the certification process. That subject has been
discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere.

So my question to you is this: Whereas you have been doing this far too
long to be a grad student and you occasionally change your writing style so
that, for a few months at a time, your trolling is dramatically less
effective or more effective; who really are you, how many are you, and why?