will this fly?

OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be
better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
their moronic passengers who flew with them.

You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
I tip my hat to you.



"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Dan Thompson" wrote
"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction
being
provided.

That is EXACTLY the assumption, and in my experience it's a pretty
good one for most people.

When ABS came out, many insurance companies would give you a break for
having it. This is no longer the case. Turns out the accident rate
for ABS-equipped cars is no lower than it is for cars not so equipped.
It's not because the system doesn't work - unlike the CAPS
installation in the Cirrus, ABS is proven and reliable. However, it
causes people to drive more agressively, thus nulling out the benefit.

Asessing the safety benefit of a given feature is not trivial, and
this is especially true if the feature is high tech. For example,
your asessment of the safety benefit of CAPS as a backup to the TKS
reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of safety benefit and
risk reduction being provided.

The TKS system is, in fact, a tremendous safety advantage in icing
conditions. The fact that it lacks known ice certification does not
mean it offers no protection (or even reduced protection) but that the
level of protection it offers is not proven. Nonetheless, the system
is well understood, and the Cirrus TKS installation is not much
different than what is seen on similar performance airplanes which are
KI. The level of protection is not proven, but it can be reasonably
estimated. I, too, would be willing to undertake flights with TKS
(even if not certified KI) that would ground me in an airplane with no
ice capability. However, the parachute is not a player here.

If the icing is sufficiently bad that the TKS system is overwhelmed
and the parachute system must be used, there are several reasons to
believe that the outcome will be less than wonderful.

First off, the parachute may fail to deploy properly. If there's
enough ice formation on the wings to overwhelm the TKS, how much will
there be on the fuselage? The deployment system literally has the
risers peeling away thin layers of fiberglass from the fuselage, and
the deployment system is sufficiently powerful to do this. Will it
still be powerful enough if it has to go through layers of ice as
well, or will it remain in trail - causing what skydivers call a bag
lock? Will the risers be damaged in the process, only to fail upon
opening shock? Nobody knows; the situation has not been tested or
even mathematically modeled.

If the parachute does deploy, it WILL accumulate ice. Anyone who has
ever skydived in the North in Winter will tell you that. In fact, the
slow-moving, small-diameter multiple suspension lines are ideal for
accumulating ice. Round parachutes really don't flex much unless they
are steered - something the Cirrus installation does not allow - and
will not be effective in shedding ice. Further, the fuselage will
already have accumulated ice, and will simply keep accumulating it.
Therefore, you can expect that by the time impact occurs, the plane
will be well over gross due to the ice. At gross weight, the descent
rate under parachute is already very high. In the overgross
condition, it will likely be high enough to injure the passengers
(which, at this point, includes everyone in the cabin since the pilot
ceases to have any ability to influence the flight once the parachute
deploys). I have to wonder what the survival prognosis would be in
this case.

Michael

Dan Thompson wrote:
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid. As dumb as car drivers and bikers.
They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking? It would be
better for them to just crash and end their stupid existence. Along with
their moronic passengers who flew with them.

You guys are brilliant, and much safer, for not choosing planes with chutes.
I tip my hat to you.

Have you always had this problem with reading comprehension? We said
none of the above ... OK, maybe implied that some car drivers aren't
real bright. Then again, that is hardly a revelation to anyone who has
driven recently.


Matt

"Dan Thompson" wrote
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.

Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
- she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.

As dumb as car drivers and bikers.

I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.

They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?

I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
for.

Michael

I've never used a parachute. My uncle and father are USAF Korea vets, and
had them onboard always, and my uncle had to eject out of his F86 once. I
found in his Dad's papers (my grandfather's) the letter my uncle wrote to
him describing this event, Uncle being about 20 at the time: "I was up
about 10 minutes and had to bail out because the flight leader saw smoke and
I had a forward fire warning light on. I ejected at about 14,000 and lost
my helmet. For some reason my foot hung up in the seat but I kicked that
away with no trouble. [describes a small cut he got in his head from a
chute buckle] I'll bet I looked wild when I walked into Wilson Creek (a
very small town) with my chute all over my shoulder and my collar soaked in
blood." I just happen to have this letter at hand now to quote from, it
having surfaced recently.

Your dismissal of the safety benefits of a Cirrus chute just does not fit
with my perception. The first save by such a chute came about just a few
miles from where I live, near Denton Texas. The concept in my view is
brilliant. If I ever buy a single again, it will have one. I had an engine
failure in the last single I owned. I stand by my statement that it might
save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus that will be making an
off-airport landing soon.

I know you'll find something arrogant to say about this, so take your last
shot.



"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Dan Thompson" wrote
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.

Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
- she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.

As dumb as car drivers and bikers.

I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.

They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?

I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
for.

Michael