![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pretty interesting that rescue-the-aircraft parachutes have been
considered basic-responsibility common sense in the ultralight community, while the presumptively far more properly trained pilots of presumptively far more airworthy certificated aircraft consider them controversial and possibly dangerous. To me, the objections to these systems keeps reminding me of the World War I debate about allowing pilots to carry parachutes. They don't always work, you will have people taking unnecessary risks because they know they have them, people will bail out of damaged but landable aircraft, and anyway real men don't need that sort of thing. Maybe the powers that prohibited parachutes back then were onto something! Mind you, I'll never forget the look on a hang glider pilot's face when her sailplane-ride pilot explained that a) you have to bail out of the aircraft to use the parachute and b) there are no parachutes anyway! Just to nitpick with John Cochrane, I don't know that Pelzman actually proved that spikes in the dashboard lower the accident rate (this would require doing the experiment, which I didn't think he had done), although it seems likely they would! I think his point was that the primary effect of safety equipment in cars is to increase speeds: essentially, drivers limit their speed to keep their fatality risk to an acceptable level, so increase the safety equipment and they can increase their speed while keeping the same or lower fatality risk. Their priorities are correct: limit risk first, THEN drive as fast as possible. What is counter-intuitive is that with those priorities, safety equipment will alter the speed, not the safety. Speed is not the issue in aircraft, but there is indeed a similar question: when the safety margins are improved, will light aircraft travelers consume the benefit as higher safety margins or as increased utility of the aircraft? Even if it's the latter, they still gain from having the BRS on board, and all that remains is to determine whether it's worth the cost. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Question For Real Airline Pilots | Blue | Simulators | 34 | September 6th 04 01:55 AM |
I thought some of these are classics | goneill | Soaring | 0 | April 8th 04 10:51 AM |
Rumsfeld is an even bigger asshole than I thought | noname | Military Aviation | 0 | March 20th 04 03:48 AM |
And you thought aviation reporting was bad! | C J Campbell | Piloting | 14 | February 17th 04 02:41 AM |
About the book entitled: Test Pilot, 1001 things you thought you knew about aviation | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 1 | December 2nd 03 02:54 AM |