On 26 Apr 2004 11:20:49 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote
As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.


I knew that BRS has been around for a fair time. I suppose I got
fooled by the press release claiming that the three Cirrus uses were
the first, but I suppose they meant in a regular, certified aircraft -
with 300 hp in the front the Cirrus is no ultra light for sure.
However, it IS a pretty toy and I can imagine people with more money
than experience buying one and coming unstuck for exactly the same
reasons that would apply if they bought a Ferrari as a first sports
car.

In answer to an earlier poster: I personally don't think the
comparison of BRS and car seat belts is realistic: in a car there's no
close equivalent to flying into conditions you can't handle while
expecting the BRS / seat belt to give you an out. I grant you there is
evidence of seat belts making drivers more dangerous to pedestrians
and cyclists, but that is independent of the road conditions. closer
to the (apocryphal?) stories about Volvo drivers who, after years of
propaganda about driving the safest car on the road, think that they
are invulnerable no matter how badly they drive.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :