Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

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)

Unfortunately, you are buying into exactly the reasons for the Cirrus' poor
history.

First, the chute is not an option, it is a necessity. When the airplane
reaches a particular state or meets a certain set of parameters, your only
possible course of action is to deploy the BRS. When you reach a particular
state, if you are in an Archer or a 172, you can recover. But if you are in
a Cirrus, you absolutely must deploy the BRS; there is no recovery.

Second, you made the statement: "THEN we can start discussing when to pull
it (the chute)." Unfortunately, it is not a matter that can be discussed.
Again, when the airplane reaches a particular state or meets a certain set
of parameters, your only possible course of action is to deploy the BRS.
There is no room for discussion.

Now let me give you an example that is in no way indicative of the operation
of the Cirrus. You go out to fly a new airplane. On the panel is a placard
reading: "Nose-up angles greater than 30 degrees will render this aircraft
uncontrollable and control cannot be regained. The BRS must be deployed
immediately or it will not be effective". So, you're flying along and exceed
a 30 degree nose-up attitude, and you get a warning horn. A panel scan tells
you that you have exceeded the allowed angle. So what do you do?

Unfortunately, at least half of the pilots will say: "This is bull****! I
can recover from a 30 degree nose up attitude! So they try to recover,
discover that the placard was correct, and deploy the BRS. And they find out
the placard is correct again; they have deployed the BRS too late for it to
be effective, and they end up breaking the airplane.

There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots who
either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they know
more than the people who designed and built the plane.



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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)

Does anyone know what kind of training Cirrus pilots get in terms of
when to use the parachute? I'm curious to know how it would compare to
the training military pilots get for using an ejection seat (which I'm
only slightly familiar with). Does either training syllabus deal with
gray areas, or do they both stick to something along the lines of "The
parachute/ejection seat shall be used under the following
circumstances..."

I would think that there is a fairly big psychological hurdle to
overcome for using the parachute or an ejection seat since you are
effectively saying there's nothing more I can do, time to leave it up
to fate. I'm guessing that the military tailors its training to
overcome this hurdle, whereas a company like Cirrus has to avoid
addressing gray areas for liability reasons. But that's just a guess.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

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

Yes, I agree with you. As long as the presence of a parachute does not
become an excuse not to maintain proficiency with skills that could allow
the airplane to be safely landed without the parachute.


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

www.flyimc.com