Recovery parachutes again!

In article .com,
Paul kgyy wrote:

One of the other Cirrus cases was an aileron malfunction (missing hinge
or something). I'd hate to try a recovery in my arrow with an aileron
flapping in the wind.

That was the one that I've heard was repaired. It landed in some
trees/brush that took part of the impact. The usual write-up in
the aviation rags is that the Cirrus airframe is trashed by the
impact under the chute, but landing on the right surface can make
a difference. Of course, since you don't know what surface you'll
be landing on, it is better to assume the plane will be trashed if
you pull the chute. If you are to the point of worrying about
trashing the plane by pulling the chute, or trashing the plane due
to whatever emergency is causing you to think about pulling the
chute, it is time to pull the chute. Especially if whatever
emergency is likely to trash the plane by terminal impact with
terra firma.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

I wonder if his condition, if
pre-existing, was known to his AME...

I'd suspect not. Don't you need an MRI to detect a brain tumor? They
are not required for a medical certificate.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But if I were to suddenly have a stroke or heart attack, and feared
that I would (as others have) die before getting to a safe landing
zone... then sure, the BRS becomes a valid option to prevent injury to
yourself or others on the ground.

Yes, but after a moment's thought. Not after a fraction of a second.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But the guy woke up from an unexplained blackout (later found to
be from a brain tumor) to find his plane diving to the ground above Vne and
with weakness in one of his legs

But he recovered first. Then he pulled the chute.

Had he pulled it before recovery, I wouldn't have the same questions.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"John Clear" wrote in message
...
If you are to the point of worrying about
trashing the plane by pulling the chute, or trashing the plane due
to whatever emergency is causing you to think about pulling the
chute, it is time to pull the chute. Especially if whatever
emergency is likely to trash the plane by terminal impact with
terra firma.

Some instructor once told me that the number one rule of PIC is:

"Save the passengers but Don't try to save the plane"

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:

Cub Driver wrote
When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I do believe that the correct word is "bawled"...:-)

Bob Moore

Maybe after they looked at the possible cost of the operation, they
"balled" the pilot out. ;)

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

In article ,
"Icebound" wrote:


"Save the passengers but Don't try to save the plane"

If you save the airplane you can assume the passengers will also be
saved.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

If you save the airplane you can assume the passengers will also be
saved.

It's easier to fail to save the airplane than to fail to save the
passengers.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

If you save the airplane you can assume the passengers will also be
saved.

Oops. had that backwards. It's easier to fail to save the passengers
by trying to save the plane than to fail to save the passengers by not
trying to save the plane.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
[...]
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that BRS has led to the loss of a hundred
or so aircraft? Surely many or most of those aircraft could have been
flown to a safe landing.

Wow. And I thought *I* was cynical.

It's probably safe to say that at least in some of the cases, use of the BRS
was not necessary. But airframes are replaceable. Human life is not.
Furthermore, making that statement assumes that the pilot in question would
have landed safely. Just because *a* pilot may have been able to land the
airplane safely, that doesn't mean *that* pilot would have been able to.

My biggest concern is that once the BRS has been deployed, there's no
control over where you land. But there have been enough examples of pilots
choosing very poor emergency landing sites, where they endanger the life or
property of innocent bystanders, to reassure me that the BRS is unlikely to
increase this risk in any significant way.

I'm unlikely to fly an airplane with a BRS installed, but for those who feel
it's an important safety feature, I don't see any justification for
questioning that decision, or for mischaracterizing the technology as
somehow detrimental to aviation generally.

Pete