![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think you are right to question the statement. They're numbers taken out
of context. I think it would have been better for him to simply say that he invested in a BRS to increase the odds of survival. If and when to deploy is debatable. What is not debatable is that having the chute gives you more options than not having it. Anyone else think that two-weeks for that amount of work at the "regular 50-hour inspection" was a lot? I can understand the broken shear coupling. Probably a manufacturing defect despite FAA certification. Who would have thought! But a fuel sender and a new gauge? Is there a recall on them or something? Otherwise, it sounds like the A/P was fishing for a solution or money. Kudos to the pilot. He survived without causing injury except to himself or damage except to his own plane. I think he did the right thing only because I have no way to second guess him. What a marketing challenge for Cirrus. People debate the value and emotions of having the parachutes. People debate the value of using the parachutes whether the pilot chooses to launch them or not. People debate whether lives were saved by the chute or if they would have survived anyway. What a mess. Only those that overcome the emotions and decide to give themselves one last out will ever benefit. Only those who have faced disaster and pulled the cord rather than roll the dice can truly understand. ------------------------------- Travis "Wizard of Draws" wrote in message news:BEF0A6D7.7EB5A%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com... On 7/5/05 3:14 PM, in article , "Michael182/G" spewed: Each pilot has to establish and evaluate their own risk assessment criteria, but for me something that has a greater than 50% risk of death, even if only 1% of the time, is an unacceptable risk. That's why I bought a Cirrus in the first place. While I'm glad this guy made it down relatively safely, I have to wonder about this statement. It seems that I'm taking a greater risk than I thought when I started this flying stuff. Is my death actually greater than 50%, 1% of the time? I'm no math Wiz by any stretch of the imagination, but at ~300 hours, I seem to be living on borrowed time. -- Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino Cartoons with a Touch of Magic http://www.wizardofdraws.com More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic http://www.cartoonclipart.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
eScrew zen story | [email protected] | Owning | 0 | December 20th 04 07:19 AM |
Funny story about naval | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 20th 04 03:37 AM |
Funny story about piloting | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | December 20th 04 12:34 AM |
Another Cirrus 'chute deployment | Dan Luke | Piloting | 98 | September 29th 04 01:57 AM |