Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
non-ejection seat when the
PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
usable weight limit
minus 4,000lb is ....

Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:23:20 -0400, Buff5200 wrote:






Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
non-ejection seat when the
PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
usable weight limit
minus 4,000lb is ....

Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

Not to mention that ejection seats are used in jets because of their high
speed and design, which often make manual ejection impossible. If WWII
pilots can manually jump, while shot and being shot at, from a 400+MPH
plane, I think people could do it at a more common 120-300mph range, while
uninjured.

Of course, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your passengers that
you're a good pilot while you're wearing that chute on your back.
"No...seriously...it's just a fashion statement."

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:04:35 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message
...
Tom

Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part of the down town
lights and is working on the rest and he's even a Democrat )

Synchronizing them to do what? :~)


The synchronization is with the other lights down a given straight line
path.

It's my understanding that, when traveling in a single direction, the
lights are purposely timed to minimize the number of interestions you can
transverse at any given green light cycle. The idea is that it prevents
people from speeding through these heavily traveled routes and requires
the drivers to pay more attention to traffic and signals around them. I
believe it also reduced the number of red light speeders. Last I heard,
doing so resulted in fewer accidents at the expense of greater travel time
and more frequent stops.

Reversing this by synchronising many green lights in a row may cause the
accident rates to rise.

How factual this is, I don't know. I just remember reading about this
some number of years ago.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message Are you assuming traffic on the
interstate?

Every situation is different. On a sunny day with light traffic, it probably
wouldn't make much difference. However, on the day in question, it would
have been hard to find the interstate as forward visibilty was restricted.
Additionally, the ceiling was low. The pilot wouldn't have had much time to
manuever to avoid the traffic and the traffic wouldn't have had much time to
react once the pilot sighted the interstate. Wet pavement would increase
stopping distances.

More options equals better risk management. In this specific incident, the
occupants would likely have been severly injured or killed if the plane had
forward motion when it encountered the pine trees.

D.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Not to mention that ejection seats are used in jets because of their high
speed and design, which often make manual ejection impossible. If WWII
pilots can manually jump, while shot and being shot at, from a 400+MPH
plane, I think people could do it at a more common 120-300mph range, while
uninjured.

It's all a matter of odds, and increasing the odds for the pilot. Remember
that plenty of jump planes have gone down and the jumpers were unable or
unwilling to exit through the open door.

Of course, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your passengers that
you're a good pilot while you're wearing that chute on your back.
"No...seriously...it's just a fashion statement."

Reminds me of the joke which ends with the stewardess announcing: "...and
don't worry, the pilot has gone for help."

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...

More options equals better risk management. In this specific incident, the
occupants would likely have been severly injured or killed if the plane
had
forward motion when it encountered the pine trees.

There may well be advantages from a BRS, including a softer landing on pine
trees

I do not, however, believe that the occupants would likely have been
severely injured or killed if the plane had forward motion when it
encountered pine trees. It is quite common for airplanes to land on trees
and then the occupants walk away unharmed; the pilot needs to keep flying
the airplane all the way until touchdown and he also needs to land into the
wind.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Big John" wrote:
Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part
of the down town lights and is working on the rest and
he's even a Democrat )

When did they get un-synchronized? The downtown lights were
synchronized in Houston when I learned to drive in the '60s and were
still that way when I left in 1990.

Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street,
is still hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since
start of business early in year
(just before Super Bowel) (

I'm not totally up to speed on that thing, but from what I hear from
family & friends in Houston, it sounds like the dumbest boondoggle in
America.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

The only aircraft I had in mind were ex-warbirds and maybe the new Javelin. I
distinctly remember a couple warbird crashes in the SoCal area when I was young
where the pilot could have been saved by the ejection seat but the press reported
it as deactivated. Obviously a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat is not
feasible for GA aircraft.

Dave Reinhart


Buff5200 wrote:



Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
non-ejection seat when the
PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
usable weight limit
minus 4,000lb is ....

Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

Dan Luke wrote:

Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street,
is still hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since
start of business early in year
(just before Super Bowel) (

I'm not totally up to speed on that thing, but from what I hear from
family & friends in Houston, it sounds like the dumbest boondoggle in
America.

No, people are simply re-learning why most cities got rid of streetcars years ago.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:34:25 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

I do not, however, believe that the occupants would likely have been
severely injured or killed if the plane had forward motion when it
encountered pine trees. It is quite common for airplanes to land on trees
and then the occupants walk away unharmed; the pilot needs to keep flying
the airplane all the way until touchdown and he also needs to land into the
wind.

It is also quite common for a landing in trees to be fatal. I
believe that the experts would disagree with you about landing in
trees.

Here in Western Oregon we have more fir trees than pine trees but I
would always choose to use the BRS rather than execute a forced
landing in the trees.

I was skeptical about airbags in autos, but I've been convinced of
their effectiveness. I was also skeptical of the BRS but I'm becoming
convinced of their effectiveness.

Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
belts?

- John Ousterhout -