Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Greg Copeland wrote:
Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
safe" planes without that system?

Ron Lee

At this point in time the Cirrus is the less safe plane.

(Ron Lee) wrote in message ...
Greg Copeland wrote:
Simply put, which pilot do you want to be? The live one on the ground
saying words like, "maybe" or the dead one on the ground with a chute
still packed and the last words spoken, "I can recover"? Which crutch
would you rather use? A chute or ego?

I'd rather be the "maybe" guy myself. Seems Ron would rather be the
later. I'm with ya Michael!

I would rather be the pilot that does not need a parachute. Will you
be going out and buying a Cirrus...or will you continue to fly "less
safe" planes without that system?

Ron Lee

Well, I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have an engine failure.
I'd *rather* be the pilot who doesn't have a vacuum failure in nasty
hard IMC. I'd *rather* be the pilot who never got a bad vector into a
thunderstorm cell. Let me know when you can guarantee that these
things won't happen to me (or you), OK?

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I
*can* guarantee...buy flying a plane with a BRS chute. That is all
this is - an option. You think a pilot is going to pop a chute on a
$200,000 airframe and turn it into nifty piece of non-flying
avante-garde artwork because he wants to see what the ride down feels
like?

This is no more a 'crutch' than GPS is a crutch. Should we go back to
four-course radio ranges, because these 'new-fangled' VORs encourage
pilots to rely on them, and not maintain the skills that they had 'way
back then'?

Flying is *all* about risk management. To accomplish virtually
anything, one must take certain risks, and smart pilots judge those
risks based on the availability of options to deal with the problems
they might bring. I know some very good pilots who will not fly
single-engine at night in hard IMC. Their call...they understand the
risks, and they are the ones putting their butts on the line. That
might change now if they can fly a Cirrus, because they would have one
more, final option in case things get *really* bad. Would they want to
pull the chute? Obviously not...nor would they want a forced landing
off field...but they would take *either* if the other choice is a nice
headstone with their name on it somewhere.

Yes, I'll continue flying Cessnas. But if I have my choice between
flying a plane that has a chute and one that doesn't, all else being
equal, of *course* I'd choose the plane with the chute. Who wouldn't?
Would you go to a restaurant with 5 things on the menu, instead of an
identical place that had 20, just because you *might* choose not to
eat any of the other choices?

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the
risk-management portfolio of the wise pilot...an option to save lives
when all the other options are gone. As such, it is a great benefit to
the aviation community, and I can only hope that it becomes increasing
common.

Cheers,

Cap

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...

But most of all I'd *rather* be the pilot with one more option to save
the lives of my passengers and myself when things go South. That I


The issue is not one of pulling the chute with an engine failure over
hostile terrain or structural failure -- no one is likely to question those.

I do, however, think there is a very reasonable question whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure. Using a parachute in those situations is overkill
which needlessly damages the airplane and frankly can put a pilot and those
on the ground at risk because he cannot select the landing site.

All IFR pilots should fly with a battery GPS and should also regularly
practice partial panel. A backup electric AI is also an excellent idea
which is far less expensive than a parachute.

Any IFR pilot flying an airplane with a battery GPS, vacuum AI, and backup
electric AI should be able to handle an instrument or electrical or vacuum
failure to a safe IMC landing without resorting to pulling the parachute.

Even if a parachute IS in an airplane under the above circumstances with the
above backup equipment, there is no reason to pull the parachute -- it is
safer and more prudent to just fly an emergency approach using the backup
GPS.

A battery GPS and an electric AI also cost MUCH, MUCH less than a parachute.

There is no doubt the BRS system has saved lives. There is no doubt
that it is an added safety feature. It is a great, new tool in the


Actually, whether the BRS system has saved lives YET is very much a valid
point to debate. None of the incidents so far where the BRS was pulled was
clearly an unrecoverable situation without a parachute.

However, I do agree that there are indeed some situations where the BRS
system could save lives -- the most relevant situation would be an in-flight
breakup. Another situation would be engine failure at night or over hostile
terrain. However, statistics show year after year that these situations
are extremely rare.

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

www.flyimc.com

Captain,

good post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Richard,

whether the
parachute is the correct option to deal with vacuum failure or even total
electrical failure.


I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it
is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave
containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in
effect, you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"EDR" wrote in message
...

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.

In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
the aircraft coordinated in turns?

Actually, I have not seen uncoordinated flight to be a serious problem in
either my students or in the students of other instructors. I don't know
where people keep getting this as not being covered in flight instruction.

Rick has written about the failure of instructors to teach students
how/when/where to scud run. That's a survival skill. Just think what
else the instructors aren't teaching that the student needs to know
before they go out on their own.

Since instructors do not control the weather, scud running as a survival
skill is not always available. Everybody has their own ideas of things to
add to the training syllabus. I have plenty of my own. It seems harsh, but
training is market driven. If training becomes too expensive, no one will
get training at all. Basic flight training is just that -- an attempt to
teach the minimal skills needed to fly an airplane. No one likes it, but we
live with it because we know that no one will buy 1,000 hours to get a
private pilot certificate. It may be true that a pilot with a new
certificate is no more competent to fly than a new college graduate with a
business degree is competent to manage, but at least he has the foundation
needed to learn what he does need to know.

We seem to have a pretty good balance now. Accident rates are far lower than
they were back in the old days when all these gripers learned to fly.

All these people that keep criticizing the flight instructing structure need
to show how things could be done better instead of just saying that the
instructors aren't doing their job. One thing I have noticed is that those
who are the most critical of flight instruction are those most interested in
perpetuating their personal theories and hangar myths about how airplanes
should be flown (as in taxiing with the yoke full back).

Suggesting that the designated examiners are passing incompetent pilots is
just plain silly. The examiners test to the practical test standards.
Candidates either meet them or they don't. If you don't like the practical
test standards as written, you are free to submit suggestions for changes.

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
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).

If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that
every safety improvement is a bad thing.

If these guys had their way, cars would instead of airbags have a sharp
spear embedded in the steering column which would impale any driver who was
so careless as to get into an accident.

Their attitude seems to be that a small bomb should be installed in every
airplane so that anyone who is so thoughtless as to crash is guaranteed to
be scattered in small pieces over a wide area.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

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.

Your implication is that he should not have done that. If the CAPS system
gives you enough additional safety margin to make such a flight reasonable,
why not?


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?

If you took a mountain flying course, they should have taught you that the
weather in mountains is unpredictable.


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?

The pilot was instrument rated on an IFR flight plan, but it does not matter
whether the instruments failed or he became disoriented, or both. If he was
unable to fly "needle, ball, airspeed" (and it is a lot easier to do that in
training than when the instruments actually fail) and was unable to maintain
control of the aircraft for any reason, he should have deployed the chute.
The airplane was close to the ground and in IMC. I suspect that it was the
better part of valor to deploy the chute and figure out what went wrong
later.

In general, the CAPS system gives the pilot not only an additional safety
margin, but additional capability. This is true of all safety improvements.
They give you the option to do things safely that were maybe too dangerous
to do before. As with all new technologies, the limits of what CAPS can do
for us will be explored and a gradual consensus will be developed as to what
those limits are.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:35:06 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:



We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD
Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely
that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was
in contact with the controller by radio.

Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum
system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all
electric. As far as knowing what happened, we do have the pilot's
statement and without out proof to the contrary, I see no reason to
doubt it.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"EDR" wrote in message
...

I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree
with Lee.
I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the
country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling.
The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the
ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When
taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input?

If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use
some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down
when taxiing, depending on wind direction.


That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only
"correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read
Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass
strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep
your prop off the ground.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)