Ballistic chute saves 4 souls

Better start screaming .I am curious is the crash in Texas a result of
"Loosing" unequal amounts of fuel also?
"Rich S."

Nope, it was the result of a maintenance error that resulting in the failure of
one of the ailerons. The pilot did not lose control of the aircraft but felt
that a controled landing would not be possible and elected to use the chute
instead.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:08:55 GMT, Peter Dohm
wrote:

:
:You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three
:ways to look at this:
:1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with
:$300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability;
:and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft.
:Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be
:up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in
:the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do
:not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.)

That's assuming (as everyone has, till now) that pulling the handle
will result in a destroyed aircraft. I'm not sure we're going to find
that. As I understand it, the airplane in the first successful
deployment (the one in Texas, mentioned up higher in the thread) was
bought back by the factory and is flying again.


:2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument
:being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If
:automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the
:aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it."

:3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made
:it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares
:the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a
:reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins!

I'm sorry, I don't get that. I mean, lots of airplanes that are
certified for spins have been lost in spins. Ignoring the BRS the
Cirrus performance is very good, compared to other things in it's
class.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:55:25 -0700, "Tim Ward"
wrote:


"Jack Idler" wrote in message
.. .

"BllFs6" wrote in message
...
WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
misspell
losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
issue.

As well they should...its the principal of the matter you know....

And those who abuse it are guilty of a capitol offense .....

And I for one will not take it lieing down...

take care

Blll

Your right! Its enough!


Oh, just go back into you're hanger and measure the cord of you're wing.

That would be 4 ft x 4 ft x 8 ft.


Tim Ward


--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
wrote:

:On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
deployed
:his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
a
:remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
entered
:a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
4200
:foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
officer
n the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
a
:serious out of balance situation.
:
:They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
when
:the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message ...

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Bob Babcock" wrote in message
om...


WATCH OUT!!! These guys will fight to the death for the right to
misspell
losing! Check Google for the last flame war that erupted over this
issue.



LOOSING is the act of using a LOO in the UK, where as losing is what
it is.:-) now I've got my flame-proof knickerbockers on so there.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer"
wrote:


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
wrote:

:On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
deployed
:his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
a
:remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
entered
:a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
4200
:foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
officer
n the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
a
:serious out of balance situation.
:
:They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
when
:the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
their skills.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:45:04 GMT, Dillon Pyron
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer"
wrote:
The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
their skills.

Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not the
Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear parachutes.
Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless lives, can we?

Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license. Take
him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds are, he
can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake? *Mechanical*
brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?

But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop him
in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good stab at
it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an Aviat Husky.
Which, of course, is currently in production.

Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well, guess
what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes, which, for
the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds with a
mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers attached to
cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces, whose relative
positions have to be coordinated and change with the application of power,
amount of fuel burned, etc.

I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed* to be
difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't measure up,
you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator... well, I hope those
who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared airplanes. People
complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.

The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the viability
of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and full-aircraft ballistic
recovery parachutes proved themselves in the ultralight/homebuilt world.
Other innovations, like electronic ignition, got their start in
homebuilding as well.

Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a skilled
pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But the point of
the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content to leave that
particular controversy to the insurance companies and courts to decide.

Ron Wanttaja

Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not the
Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear parachutes.
Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless lives, can we?

Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license. Take
him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds are, he
can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake? *Mechanical*
brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?

But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop him
in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good stab at
it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an Aviat Husky.
Which, of course, is currently in production.

Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well, guess
what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes, which, for
the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds with a
mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers attached to
cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces, whose relative
positions have to be coordinated and change with the application of power,
amount of fuel burned, etc.

I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed* to be
difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't measure up,
you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator... well, I hope those
who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared airplanes. People
complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.

The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the viability
of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and full-aircraft ballistic
recovery parachutes proved themselves in the ultralight/homebuilt world.
Other innovations, like electronic ignition, got their start in
homebuilding as well.

Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a skilled
pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But the point of
the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content to leave that
particular controversy to the insurance companies and courts to decide.

Ron Wanttaja




Thank you Ron for a very good perspective on the BRS debate. I think that you
could have save a lot of time and typing by just cutting to the chase with the
one and most important statement:

"But the point of CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos."

What we have been hearing here is a lot of egos say "I could have done
better....blah, blah, blah". The fact is that not a one of them was in the air
with the pilot at the time and not a single one knows for certain that they
could have done better or would have done anything different. The true benefit
to CAPS is that it gives the pilot another option to save their lives.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

osite (RobertR237) wrote in
:


Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not
the Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear
parachutes. Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless
lives, can we?

Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license.
Take him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds
are, he can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake?
*Mechanical* brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?

But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop
him in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good
stab at it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an
Aviat Husky. Which, of course, is currently in production.

Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well,
guess what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes,
which, for the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds
with a mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers
attached to cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces,
whose relative positions have to be coordinated and change with the
application of power, amount of fuel burned, etc.

I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed*
to be difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't
measure up, you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator...
well, I hope those who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared
airplanes. People complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.

The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the
viability of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and
full-aircraft ballistic recovery parachutes proved themselves in the
ultralight/homebuilt world. Other innovations, like electronic
ignition, got their start in homebuilding as well.

Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a
skilled pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But
the point of the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content
to leave that particular controversy to the insurance companies and
courts to decide.

Ron Wanttaja




Thank you Ron for a very good perspective on the BRS debate. I think
that you could have save a lot of time and typing by just cutting to
the chase with the one and most important statement:

"But the point of CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos."

What we have been hearing here is a lot of egos say "I could have done
better....blah, blah, blah". The fact is that not a one of them was
in the air with the pilot at the time and not a single one knows for
certain that they could have done better or would have done anything
different. The true benefit to CAPS is that it gives the pilot
another option to save their lives.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)



..