Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

(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

Well, I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have an engine failure.
I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have a vacuum failure in nasty
hard IMC. I'd *rather* be the pilot who never got a bad vector into a
thunderstorm cell. Let me know when you can guarantee that these
things won't happen to me (or you), OK?

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I
*can* guarantee...buy flying a plane with a BRS chute. That is all
this is - an option. You think a pilot is going to pop a chute on a
$200,000 airframe and turn it into nifty piece of non-flying
avante-garde artwork because he wants to see what the ride down feels
like?

This is no more a 'crutch' than GPS is a crutch. Should we go back to
four-course radio ranges, because these 'new-fangled' VORs encourage
pilots to rely on them, and not maintain the skills that they had 'way
back then'?

Flying is *all* about risk management. To accomplish virtually
anything, one must take certain risks, and smart pilots judge those
risks based on the availability of options to deal with the problems
they might bring. I know some very good pilots who will not fly
single-engine at night in hard IMC. Their call...they understand the
risks, and they are the ones putting their butts on the line. That
might change now if they can fly a Cirrus, because they would have one
more, final option in case things get *really* bad. Would they want to
pull the chute? Obviously not...nor would they want a forced landing
off field...but they would take *either* if the other choice is a nice
headstone with their name on it somewhere.

Yes, I'll continue flying Cessnas. But if I have my choice between
flying a plane that has a chute and one that doesn't, all else being
equal, of *course* I'd choose the plane with the chute. Who wouldn't?
Would you go to a restaurant with 5 things on the menu, instead of an
identical place that had 20, just because you *might* choose not to
eat any of the other choices?

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the
risk-management portfolio of the wise pilot...an option to save lives
when all the other options are gone. As such, it is a great benefit to
the aviation community, and I can only hope that it becomes increasing
common.

Cheers,

Cap

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I


The issue is not one of pulling the chute with an engine failure over
hostile terrain or structural failure -- no one is likely to question those.

I do, however, think there is a very reasonable question whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure. Using a parachute in those situations is overkill
which needlessly damages the airplane and frankly can put a pilot and those
on the ground at risk because he cannot select the landing site.

All IFR pilots should fly with a battery GPS and should also regularly
practice partial panel. A backup electric AI is also an excellent idea
which is far less expensive than a parachute.

Any IFR pilot flying an airplane with a battery GPS, vacuum AI, and backup
electric AI should be able to handle an instrument or electrical or vacuum
failure to a safe IMC landing without resorting to pulling the parachute.

Even if a parachute IS in an airplane under the above circumstances with the
above backup equipment, there is no reason to pull the parachute -- it is
safer and more prudent to just fly an emergency approach using the backup
GPS.

A battery GPS and an electric AI also cost MUCH, MUCH less than a parachute.

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the


Actually, whether the BRS system has saved lives YET is very much a valid
point to debate. None of the incidents so far where the BRS was pulled was
clearly an unrecoverable situation without a parachute.

However, I do agree that there are indeed some situations where the BRS
system could save lives -- the most relevant situation would be an in-flight
breakup. Another situation would be engine failure at night or over hostile
terrain. However, statistics show year after year that these situations
are extremely rare.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Captain,

good post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Cap, you may be right but my point remains that there may be
underlying training/judgement issues that if solved will save many
more lives than the parachutes ever will. For every possible live
saves by a airplane chute, there may be a hundred or more lost because
of pilot error. So unless plane parachutes are mandated, the payback
is mucho better on fixing the pilot problem.

Ron Lee


(Captain Wubba) wrote:

(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

Well, I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have an engine failure.
I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have a vacuum failure in nasty
hard IMC. I'd *rather* be the pilot who never got a bad vector into a
thunderstorm cell. Let me know when you can guarantee that these
things won't happen to me (or you), OK?

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I
*can* guarantee...buy flying a plane with a BRS chute. That is all
this is - an option. You think a pilot is going to pop a chute on a
$200,000 airframe and turn it into nifty piece of non-flying
avante-garde artwork because he wants to see what the ride down feels
like?

This is no more a 'crutch' than GPS is a crutch. Should we go back to
four-course radio ranges, because these 'new-fangled' VORs encourage
pilots to rely on them, and not maintain the skills that they had 'way
back then'?

Flying is *all* about risk management. To accomplish virtually
anything, one must take certain risks, and smart pilots judge those
risks based on the availability of options to deal with the problems
they might bring. I know some very good pilots who will not fly
single-engine at night in hard IMC. Their call...they understand the
risks, and they are the ones putting their butts on the line. That
might change now if they can fly a Cirrus, because they would have one
more, final option in case things get *really* bad. Would they want to
pull the chute? Obviously not...nor would they want a forced landing
off field...but they would take *either* if the other choice is a nice
headstone with their name on it somewhere.

Yes, I'll continue flying Cessnas. But if I have my choice between
flying a plane that has a chute and one that doesn't, all else being
equal, of *course* I'd choose the plane with the chute. Who wouldn't?
Would you go to a restaurant with 5 things on the menu, instead of an
identical place that had 20, just because you *might* choose not to
eat any of the other choices?

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the
risk-management portfolio of the wise pilot...an option to save lives
when all the other options are gone. As such, it is a great benefit to
the aviation community, and I can only hope that it becomes increasing
common.

Cheers,

Cap

Greg, if you are the type pilot who relies upon such a system instead
of proper flight planning and judgment to avoid potentially fatal
situations, I have no desire to ever fly in an aircraft with you as
PIC. Of course these comments may or may not apply to these cases.

I am merely raising points to consider and a few of you are going
postal misinterpreting my comments. Makes me wonder of you are
dealers.

Ron Lee

Greg Copeland wrote:

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!

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee top-posted his remark 75 lines away from
what he responded to:

Greg, if you are the type pilot who relies upon such a system instead
of proper flight planning and judgment to avoid potentially fatal
situations, I have no desire to ever fly in an aircraft with you as
PIC. Of course these comments may or may not apply to these cases.

You ASSume that "thinking parachutes may be a good thing" therefore
means a blind reliance on same and a disregard of "proper flight
planning and judgement". Or at least you give that impression. I'm
curious how you come to these conclusions.

I am merely raising points to consider and a few of you are going
postal misinterpreting my comments. Makes me wonder of you are
dealers.

No. You are making pretty strong and dogmatic claims that BRS is a
dangerous crutch -- pretty much the same claims that delayed the
introduction of parachutes into military aviation, and just as valid.
Now you use your outside voice to lay down a lame ad hominem attack
on those who disagree with your position. Get a life.

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/

Michael, your perception of my post is so off base as to be
irrelevant. Go reread my posts with an open mind and try to fathom
whay I was saying.

Ron Lee



(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


--
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/

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Michael, your perception of my post is so off base as to be
irrelevant. Go reread my posts with an open mind and try to fathom
whay I was saying.

Would you care to point out more clearly where I misspeak? If your
words don't mean what the seem to mean on a plain reading, then
perhaps you need to reconsider how you express yourself.

If you took the time to address specific points in context instead
of dropping a vague remark at the top (top posting bad), placing
the *burden* on your readers to figure out what you are responding
to, perhaps you might add some clarity. But you insist on putting
your words out of context, where others can easily misconstrue them.

You wrote and I responded:
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.

You do not address how your claims are at all consistent with one-another.

I'm not going to repeat the rest -- if you can't be bothered to address
the concerns, but feel it necessary to make a vague response, you imply
agreement.

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/

Hi Ron,

A question for you:

How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
general aviation accidents?

A second question:

If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
afterwards about the circumstances of their accident? Did you assign
any blame to them? Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Your attitude on this subject indicates to me that your answer to
question number 1 will be zero, but if not, I would be interested in
hearing your answer to question number 2.

Dean

(Ron Lee) wrote in message ...
(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

Dean Wilkinson wrote:

How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
general aviation accidents?

I'm not Ron, but this is usenet. I've known one.

If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
afterwards about the circumstances of their accident?

He was an experienced Bonanza pilot. He stalled a canard design with which he was
unfamiliar and tried to recover as if it were a Bonnie. That led to a secondary stall
at too low an altitude.

Did you assign any blame to them?

A little.

Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Maybe - do they work at 600' AGL? Familiarity training would have done the trick. If
he hadn't had a gear problem and elected to return to the field on his ferry flight
home, he also might have had a opportunity to get the experience he needed.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".