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
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the article is perhaps erroneous. It alludes to
inflight "emergencies." My knowledge of the facts in these two incidents is inadequate to properly evaluate them. However, I have read things that bring up probing questions. The incident that occurred over mountains was the first. I live just east of Pikes Peak (Rockies) and for almost 16 years they have been a barrier. I had neither the training nor the proper aircraft to "Go West young man." Last year I took a mountain flying course to handle the training part (RV-6A takes care of the plane). One thing they stress is do not fly over mountains at night and yet the Cirrus pilot reportedly did. The other noteworthy report about this incident (again if factually reported) is that he encountered severe turbulence. Was turbulence forecast or to be expected? I check winds aloft forecasts and cancel mountain excursions if beyond my comfort level. Could he not execute a 180 degree turn and get to calmer air? The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to safely land mere minutes after take-off? I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it is a last resort for pilot incompetence? Ron Lee |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ArtP wrote:
The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not. You are right. I would have significant problems with no instruments. But then I am not instrument rated and I avoid IMC conditions. My only experience with IMC was with an instructor in the right seat. Even with instruments, my ears were telling me bad things compared to the instruments. But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft? Ron Lee |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ron,
know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it is a last resort for pilot incompetence? Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics. What in the world have you been smoking? Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ron,
But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft? Jeeze! "His statement" is as much guesswork as is everybodys with regard to these accident. That's what accident *investigations* are for! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
First off Thomas...I smoke nothing. Nor do I consume any mind altering
substances. Frankly, I cannot see your point of view. Instead of doing something to keep pilots from making idiotic judgements, you prefer a crutch (CAPS in this case). I am able to make judgement calls about when to fly and not fly. I can divert when weather dictates. If the ultimate facts in these two events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address that instead of relying on crutches. If your goal is to prevent deaths, CAPS is not likely to be in a significant number of aircraft so you have to find a way to fix the pilot element for the non-CAPS equipped aircraft. Fact of life though...people screw up and people die. At some point Darwinism takes over Ron Lee Thomas Borchert wrote: Ron, know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it is a last resort for pilot incompetence? Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics. What in the world have you been smoking? Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ron,
It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death. If you go back into aviation history writings, much of what you said is straight out of the arguments of those in the Army and Navy aviation wings that were against giving pilots parachutes in the late 19 teens and early '20s. By gawd, that pilot is taught to bring the airplane back, not jump out of it (same argument initially against giving pilots flying the mail parachutes). (Don't forget that Lindbergh jumped from his mail plane three times during his air mail career...thank goodness.) Fortunately, logic prevailed and military and mail pilots got to wear chutes, as did test pilots. It did take some very severely worded orders and actions to get the pilots to use them, as the macho problem kept cropping up...if a pilot jumped, the Monday-morning quarterbacks and macho meatheads would promptly criticize the guy for relying on a crutch, the parachute, instead of dying like a man. Thank goodness that crap died out as the military was absolutely insistent that a pilot bail out when things did not make sense and he couldn't make them make sense. Now technology has progressed to the point that we can have a whole-airplane parachute. Of course, it brings out the boneheads who are critical of those who live because they got to the point that they decided that they could not successfully continue the flight. Maybe, if every pilot who is rewarded by living because he had the guts to use the chute, knowing that half-wits would criticize him could be allowed to select one of the loudmouths for capital punishment...to die in his place, as it were.... Don't forget there is one Cirrus accident in which the aircraft spun in. It had two pilots aboard and apparently neither activated the chute. (It appears the rocket cooked off in the post crash fire and deployed the chute.) Can't you just see the discussion going on as one pilot wants to pull the handle and the other insists that he not do so because they will be the subject of criticism? Yep, if you want to follow the "it's better to be dead than embarassed" rule of aviation, press on. However, I kind of like technology, it's what allows us to rise off the ground in the first place, so we might as well have, and use, the safety technology as well. BTW, as you may know, in early World War I, many British troops were not allowed to wear helmets in combat...it was considered cowardice in the face of the enemy. Thank goodness that line of thinking doesn't always prevail. When I teach aerobatics I tell my students that if the airplane is doing something you don't recognize and you cannot make it do something you do recognize by the time you get down to the altitude selected prior to flight, quit screwing around and jump out. If I get into that sort of situation in an airplane with a CAPS, I'll use it because I do NOT know what is wrong, cannot correct it and don't have time to trouble shoot it, whether or not I was the cause of it, my obligation to do my best to save my passengers and myself. I'll pull the handle. All the best, Rick (Ron Lee) wrote in message ... First off Thomas...I smoke nothing. Nor do I consume any mind altering substances. Frankly, I cannot see your point of view. Instead of doing something to keep pilots from making idiotic judgements, you prefer a crutch (CAPS in this case). I am able to make judgement calls about when to fly and not fly. I can divert when weather dictates. If the ultimate facts in these two events lead to pilot error as a primary factor, you need to address that instead of relying on crutches. If your goal is to prevent deaths, CAPS is not likely to be in a significant number of aircraft so you have to find a way to fix the pilot element for the non-CAPS equipped aircraft. Fact of life though...people screw up and people die. At some point Darwinism takes over Ron Lee Thomas Borchert wrote: Ron, know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it is a last resort for pilot incompetence? Yeah, the pilots should have rather died honorably than having been offered a further option through CAPS. After all, real pilots don't make errors, which can be clearly seen in the accident statistics. What in the world have you been smoking? Sorry, no offense meant, but this attitude really ticks me off. Most GA accidents are caused by the pilots doing something obviously incompetent. So what? The chute is just one more option out -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | Dennis | Owning | 170 | May 19th 04 04:44 PM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |