Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

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.

(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

Richard,

whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure.


I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
effect, you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
effect, you do.

Where DO you draw the line at pulling the parachute "just to be safe" ?

How about lost com with nav still operational?

How about moderate turbulence?

How about a door that pops open.

Surely you will agree that there is SOME point at which a pilot should be
able to handle a situation without resorting to a parachute. If you do not
agree, then that attitude will push insurance costs on a Cirrus to the point
that the airplane is no longer insurable. If you do agree, then the
question shifts not to "if the PIC thinks it is, then it is" but rather to a
discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and
what situations are not appropriate.

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

www.flyimc.com

Richard,

but rather to a
discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and
what situations are not appropriate.


Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing. THEN
we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to
pilot. And as for the two accidents - we don't know enough about them to judge
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas, I see your point. Let's take it to an extreme. I am a pilot
flying a parachute equipped plane. I have to use an airports
facilities really, really bad. I see an airport under me. I decide
the best way down is to deploy the parachute so that the leather seats
are not ruined. The plane is destroyed but it was my call and my call
alone that my course of action was right.

You have no right to respond negatively to my course of action because
only I and I alone was there to assess all the factors involved.

However, I will say that I was an idiot.

Ron Lee


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Richard,

whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure.


I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
effect, you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
Thomas, I see your point. Let's take it to an extreme. I am a pilot
flying a parachute equipped plane. I have to use an airports
facilities really, really bad. I see an airport under me. I decide
the best way down is to deploy the parachute so that the leather seats
are not ruined. The plane is destroyed but it was my call and my call
alone that my course of action was right.

You have no right to respond negatively to my course of action because
only I and I alone was there to assess all the factors involved.

Well, your decision to pull the handle was yours and yours alone to make.
Once you did it, there was no going back. If you don't share your true
reason, we won't be able to point and laugh. On the other hand, if there is
a formal investigation into the condition of the airplane, it may be
discerned that nothing was wrong.

Of course, your scenario elides the (probably) quicker way to get to those
facilities -- flying the airplane onto the runway and taxiing to the FBO,
but you had a point to make...

However, I will say that I was an idiot.

Well...you know yourself best...

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/