Parachute fails to save SR-22

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Irrelevant, IMHO, as to the subject of this thread. If the pilot is too
proud to pull it, the safety feature of the parachute means nothing. Just
like seatbelts. If you don't use them, they don't have a chance of
working.


But if you don't use them they cannot fail. It is the same with the
parachute.

Morgans,

If the pilot is too
proud to pull it, the safety feature of the parachute means nothing. Just
like seatbelts. If you don't use them, they don't have a chance of working.


Sorry, but that's just, well, not so. If that were true, there'd be no pilot
error at all. And I guess we all agree there is - plenty.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Irrelevant, IMHO, as to the subject of this thread. If the pilot is too
proud to pull it, the safety feature of the parachute means nothing.
Just
like seatbelts. If you don't use them, they don't have a chance of
working.


But if you don't use them they cannot fail. It is the same with the
parachute.


If you don't use them they have already failed

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:42:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Irrelevant, IMHO, as to the subject of this thread. If the pilot is too
proud to pull it, the safety feature of the parachute means nothing. Just
like seatbelts. If you don't use them, they don't have a chance of
working.


But if you don't use them they cannot fail. It is the same with the
parachute.


Right. And it is my understanding, that the SR-22's parachute system
was installed solely to provide a means of spin recovery that was
otherwise unavailable in this aircraft.

"Allen" wrote in message
om...

If you don't use them they have already failed


Wrong. If you don't use them you've failed.

"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...

Don't forget that one of you will have to mention Hitler & the Nazis
and/or take a swipe at G.W. Bush/the evil liberals [delete as appropriate]
to make it a real Usenet argument!

Just trying to help,

Well, you should have cross-posted the thread to at least three other groups
when you jumped in to help.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

Does anyone have any hours flown / accident stats? Is there any
particular
problem with Cirrus that makes it less safe than any other like GA plane?

Sure. It is a high performance hot rod that is far too much airplane for
most of the pilots flying it. People think that with a parachute and modern
everything that it should have a safety record comparable to that of the
Cessna. That is a most unfair comparison, kind of like comparing the safety
record of a Maserati to an SUV.

The Cirrus is the modern equivalent of the fork-tailed doctor killer.
Considering that, it probably has a very good safety record by comparison.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Well, you should have cross-posted the thread to at least three other
groups
when you jumped in to help.

Nah. Cross-posting is for pikers. Multi-posting would have been the way to
go.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message ...
"HECTOP" wrote in message Btw there's like 40 miles between Coconut
Grove and Coconut Creek, FL

Heh-heh! I didn't notice that. No wonder the papers screwed up the facts.

BTW, If you want the e-ticket ride of the year, I'll be test-flying a
Cheyenne 400 next week.

D.



Where are you going to be?

"C J Campbell"

Does anyone have any hours flown / accident stats? Is there any
particular problem with Cirrus that makes it less safe than any other like
GA plane?

Sure. It is a high performance hot rod that is far too much airplane for
most of the pilots flying it. People think that with a parachute and
modern
everything that it should have a safety record comparable to that of the
Cessna. That is a most unfair comparison, kind of like comparing the
safety
record of a Maserati to an SUV.

OK. Now, is any of your speculation backed by data? I really doubt it.
But, knock yourself out. Note that I wasn't comparing it to a 172.

moo