Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

What would happen if the BRS set the airplane down on an interstate highway?
On top of power lines? In a lake? Downtown in a highly populated urban
area?

Is it possible under these conditions that injuries could have occurred in a
BRS landing whereas conventionally handling the emergency could result in no
injuries?

Richard

It sounds like you are grasping at straw possibly to justify the non available
parachute in your P-210 ( a great a/c BTW)
I would rather take the chance of a less than perfect landing area on an
interstate or lake rather than slamming down on a field with unknown hazards.
Most off field landings are injury free, but too many result in serious injury.
Looking at the relative lack of airframe damage on the 3 successful Cirrus
incidents - (do you call them accidents or precautionary landings ? :.)
)contrasted to the broken heaps of metal normally seen in the newspapers ... I
would opt for the chute.
Think of descent at 15MPH sitting on seats designed to absorb 23G vs a fence
post, rockor tree at 70MPH.RE a lake landing under chute I think the odds are
pretty good that the airframe and occupant might be intact.
My personal fear is departing over a housing development and losing an engine
at low altitude and impacting something solid at 60-80 kt. I've told myself
that I WILL deploy the chute because even it only partially deploys, it will
act as a drogue and reduce the horizontal impact, hopefully, enough to survive.

I own a Cirrus - if you couldn't tell- with a chute, life raft & life vests.
Hopefully I'll never find out if anyone of them work

John

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like
this. In one
direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you
held to
within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction,
you'd catch
exactly one red light doing this.

Years ago when I first lived in Denver, you could travel down Broadway Ave.
from the North side of town to the south side (several miles...probably from
Colfax to Hampden) and hit maybe one red light (out of two dozen or more) by
merely driving right at the speed limit (35-40 if memory serves).


By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State
posted a
speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and
got
overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster
than 25
mph.

The main arterial I live off now has a 45MPH speed limit, but the lights are
synced at 55-57. Yup, the cops hide in the bushes just off the road ala
Barney Fife.

The next town over they put in traffic cams and shortened the yellow from 7
seconds to 4.5. That's another 45 zone. When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.

Go figger!

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.



This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

"Bill Denton" wrote
So, the Cirrus and the BRS system are not inherently less safe than a
conventional aircraft, but you do have to break some old habits and develop
a good understaning of how the aircraft works. "That's broke, pull the
handle", "that's broke, pull the handle", that has to become your mantra.
Then you'll be OK...

Nothing about this is new. Skydivers have been carrying backup
parachutes for decades. There are some skydivers I know who have
thousands of jumps and have yet to see their backup parachute. On the
other hand, I have a bit under 700 jumps and 8 reserve parachute
deployments that I can think of just now. That's significantly higher
than average (I believe the average is something like 1 in 300-600)
and I can honestly say that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DEPLOYMENTS WAS
AVOIDABLE. In fact, very few deployments are unavoidable. BASE
jumpers generally do not carry backup parachutes - and don't need
them. They do things differently, and avoid the situations that would
require a reserve deployment.

There is absolutely no question that the ubiquitous backup parachute
in skydiving affects the way people practice that particular
aeronautical activity. Pack your parachute in 5 minutes in a dimly
lit area while chugging a beer? Let some total uncertified stranger
pack it for $5 (quick - how many does he have to do to make a decent
income?) and jump it without inspecting it? Fly your parachute with
lots of other people in formation so tight that you are literally
holding on to other parachutes and other jumpers are holding on to
yours? These are not aberrations - these are normal events at most
drop zones on most weekends. They would be unthinkable without a
backup parachute.

Yet the practice of deploying the reserve parachute is not without
cost or risk. Main parachutes that are jettisoned are sometimes lost,
and they are expensive. Repacks cost money. Freebags/pilot chutes
are often lost, and that means money and downtime. What's more, none
of these costs are covered by insurance. The jumper has to pay these
out of pocket, and jumpers are often college kids who have a hard time
coming up with the money.

What this will mean for the Cirrus is as yet unknown, but not every
safety innovation actually winds up making things safer. ABS is a
perfect example. The one point in favor of the Cirrus parachute -
since it will likely destroy the airframe, there should not be a
tendency to use it for no reason.

Michael

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage. Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.

These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable. Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively. They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Michael

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.



This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there
is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city of
chicago, have been very up front in saying so.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and
the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how
there
is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city of
chicago, have been very up front in saying so.



Ah, yes. Chicago as an example of fine moral leadership.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage.

Fender benders (ie, less than $xxx in damages) versus ones requireing
medical attention

Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.


These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Quite so. A few years back I was "kooked" (the tap to the rear fender like
cops use in chases), hit the barrier wall at over 50MPH on a 45 degree
angle, rolled three time and ended up on the roof. The car didn't even look
like a car anymore, but I rolled down the window, unhooked the seat belt and
climbed out. Got worse injuries (cuts) on the glass from the window. Some
kid came running up asking if I was okay; I said "That was a hell of a
ride". When the Fire Department rolled up they immediately brought out the
"jaws of life", but I was sitting on barrier and talking on my cell phone.
Of course, the next day my back told me I'd aged 40 years.



Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable.

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively.

Fun Question: In your opinion, which is worse: aggressive driving, or
careless driving?

They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

More survivable and the vehicles make them more avoidable. Think of the
marshmallow suspensions of days gone by and imagine trying to make some of
the moves we don't think tiwce about today in the world of wishbone
suspensions, MacPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, radial tires...


As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology
should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Good post!

No-Fault insurance was supposed to reduce the rates, but haven't either.
States in the Southwest, even with better year round driving conditions are
having soaring accident rates due to the influx of transients.

I wonder if we'll ever see action to improve drivers attention spans, given
the proliferation of distractions such as CD's, cell phones, kids in rear
car seats...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

I doubt it would ever happen, but wouldn't it be a nice idea to have a
higher speeding limit for drivers who passed a high-speed driver safety
course or some equivalent of driver recurrent training.

If it is safe for the police to exceed the speed limit, why cannot the
public do this as safely if they take appropriate training?

More importantly, is it really plausible that the same speed limit applies
to all drivers regardless of skill?

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

www.flyimc.com

What difference does it make if it's a "crutch for pilot error"? If the
error under discussion would have led to the deaths of the aircraft
occupants then pulling the chute was the right thing to do. Maybe the
pilot's training was inadequate to deal with the situation, maybe another
pilot in the same situation could have handled it. It doesn't matter.
The *pilot in command* decided his best option was to use the chute.

Somebody else said that most GA accidents are attributed to pilot error,
but that covers a lot of ground. Loss of control after vacuum failure in
actual IMC is, I believe, classed as pilot error because pilots are
supposed to be able to handle a partial panel situation. The vacuum
failure is usually listed as a contributing cause. The problem is, how
likely are you to recover after you've lost it while flying partial
panel? Having the chute would give you one final chance at saving the
people. To hell with the airplane.

Dave Reinhart


Ron Lee wrote:

Thomas, I love GPS. No way will VOR navigation be my primary method.
But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Jeeze, what is it with pilots and change? Anything new in GA is
bad-mouthed here - while at the same time everybody and his brother
complains about the old technology we have to use. You can't have it
both ways.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)