Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go
back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight
out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that
were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early
'20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not
jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying
the mail parachutes). (Don't forget that Lindbergh jumped from his
mail plane three times during his air mail career...thank goodness.)

Fortunately, logic prevailed and military and mail pilots got to wear
chutes, as did test pilots. It did take some very severely worded
orders and actions to get the pilots to use them, as the macho problem
kept cropping up...if a pilot jumped, the Monday-morning quarterbacks
and macho meatheads would promptly criticize the guy for relying on a
crutch, the parachute, instead of dying like a man.

Thank goodness that crap died out as the military was absolutely
insistent that a pilot bail out when things did not make sense and he
couldn't make them make sense.

Now technology has progressed to the point that we can have a
whole-airplane parachute. Of course, it brings out the boneheads who
are critical of those who live because they got to the point that they
decided that they could not successfully continue the flight. Maybe,
if every pilot who is rewarded by living because he had the guts to
use the chute, knowing that half-wits would criticize him could be
allowed to select one of the loudmouths for capital punishment...to
die in his place, as it were....

Don't forget there is one Cirrus accident in which the aircraft spun
in. It had two pilots aboard and apparently neither activated the
chute. (It appears the rocket cooked off in the post crash fire and
deployed the chute.) Can't you just see the discussion going on as
one pilot wants to pull the handle and the other insists that he not
do so because they will be the subject of criticism?

Yep, if you want to follow the "it's better to be dead than
embarassed" rule of aviation, press on. However, I kind of like
technology, it's what allows us to rise off the ground in the first
place, so we might as well have, and use, the safety technology as
well.

BTW, as you may know, in early World War I, many British troops were
not allowed to wear helmets in combat...it was considered cowardice in
the face of the enemy. Thank goodness that line of thinking doesn't
always prevail. When I teach aerobatics I tell my students that if
the airplane is doing something you don't recognize and you cannot
make it do something you do recognize by the time you get down to the
altitude selected prior to flight, quit screwing around and jump out.
If I get into that sort of situation in an airplane with a CAPS, I'll
use it because I do NOT know what is wrong, cannot correct it and
don't have time to trouble shoot it, whether or not I was the cause of
it, my obligation to do my best to save my passengers and myself.
I'll pull the handle.

All the best,
Rick

(Ron Lee) wrote in message ...
First off Thomas...I smoke nothing. Nor do I consume any mind altering
substances. Frankly, I cannot see your point of view. Instead of
doing something to keep pilots from making idiotic judgements, you
prefer a crutch (CAPS in this case).

I am able to make judgement calls about when to fly and not fly. I
can divert when weather dictates. If the ultimate facts in these two
events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address
that instead of relying on crutches.

If your goal is to prevent deaths, CAPS is not likely to be in a
significant number of aircraft so you have to find a way to fix the
pilot element for the non-CAPS equipped aircraft.

Fact of life though...people screw up and people die. At some point
Darwinism takes over

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,

know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?


Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been
offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't
make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics.

What in the world have you been smoking?

Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA
accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously
incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

Ron Lee

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?
In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
the aircraft coordinated in turns?
Rick has written about the failure of instructors to teach students
how/when/where to scud run. That's a survival skill. Just think what
else the instructors aren't teaching that the student needs to know
before they go out on their own.
Maybe this is an indicator of the failure of the designated examiner
system. You pay your money, you get your ticket... regardless!
Deja Vu all over again.

"EDR" wrote in message
...

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.

In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
the aircraft coordinated in turns?

Actually, I have not seen uncoordinated flight to be a serious problem in
either my students or in the students of other instructors. I don't know
where people keep getting this as not being covered in flight instruction.

Rick has written about the failure of instructors to teach students
how/when/where to scud run. That's a survival skill. Just think what
else the instructors aren't teaching that the student needs to know
before they go out on their own.

Since instructors do not control the weather, scud running as a survival
skill is not always available. Everybody has their own ideas of things to
add to the training syllabus. I have plenty of my own. It seems harsh, but
training is market driven. If training becomes too expensive, no one will
get training at all. Basic flight training is just that -- an attempt to
teach the minimal skills needed to fly an airplane. No one likes it, but we
live with it because we know that no one will buy 1,000 hours to get a
private pilot certificate. It may be true that a pilot with a new
certificate is no more competent to fly than a new college graduate with a
business degree is competent to manage, but at least he has the foundation
needed to learn what he does need to know.

We seem to have a pretty good balance now. Accident rates are far lower than
they were back in the old days when all these gripers learned to fly.

All these people that keep criticizing the flight instructing structure need
to show how things could be done better instead of just saying that the
instructors aren't doing their job. One thing I have noticed is that those
who are the most critical of flight instruction are those most interested in
perpetuating their personal theories and hangar myths about how airplanes
should be flown (as in taxiing with the yoke full back).

Suggesting that the designated examiners are passing incompetent pilots is
just plain silly. The examiners test to the practical test standards.
Candidates either meet them or they don't. If you don't like the practical
test standards as written, you are free to submit suggestions for changes.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"EDR" wrote in message
...

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.


That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only
"correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read
Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass
strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep
your prop off the ground.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
"EDR" wrote in message
...

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or
down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.


That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only
"correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read
Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass
strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep
your prop off the ground.

I assumed he was talking about whenever he saw somebody taxiing. If he meant
some special case he should have said so.

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
were somehow defective.

If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
rest of us) of what was actually happening.

Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
overcome then.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:37:27 +0000, Michael Houghton wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
were somehow defective.

If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
rest of us) of what was actually happening.

Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
overcome then.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.

yours,
Michael

Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

Greg Copeland wrote:
Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
safe" planes without that system?

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Greg Copeland wrote:
Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
safe" planes without that system?

Ron Lee

At this point in time the Cirrus is the less safe plane.