Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

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 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.

One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably
survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They
can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually
failed or not.
I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even
instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds.

What ever happened to "needle, ball, airspeed"?
Pilot's lose their gyros and claim instrument failure. If you practice
partial panel, you can get the airplane down safely.

(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
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.

Sorry, I'm with Durden on this one. To insist some pilots pulled their chutes
for reasons that were maybe, possibly, seems like, could-have-been not good
enough is your own point of view. You weren't there and don't know what the
situation was. To use your opinion to argue they shouldn't have had the chute
option is a cruel and inflexible point of view.

Some people like to go farther out on a limb than others, some feel perfectly
safe with few emergency options, and others go over their checklist three
times, always use that damn shoulder belt, and would pull the chute if they
feel like they're losing it.
The pilots in a couple Cirrus planes used a safety measure and survived the
situation. It may turn out, or we may never know, that they might not have died
without the option of using it.

Some people die of bad judgement. More all the time don't. Get right to work
on making us a goof-proof species if you can, but don't try to claim that
forgoing safety options on other people's behalf will make them safer.

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?
In flight, does the pilot provide the propper rudder input and keep the
the aircraft coordinated in turns?
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.
Maybe this is an indicator of the failure of the designated examiner
system. You pay your money, you get your ticket... regardless!
Deja Vu all over again.

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
were somehow defective.

If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
rest of us) of what was actually happening.

Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
overcome then.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

"ArtP" wrote in message
...

only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

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.

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

www.flyimc.com

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:37:27 +0000, Michael Houghton wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Ron Lee wrote:
(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

It is very difficult to reconcile those two sentences, and you fail to
do so.

You use pejorative terms to describe the use of the safety system for
the things it was designed specifically for (and delivered on).
You harp on the pilot's culpability.

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

You suggest, by your choice of words, that the pilots in both cases
had no business pulling the handle -- that their decision making skills
were somehow defective.

If you are in IMC at low altitude and you have instruments going haywire,
you have a situation that can turn deadly in an instant, with no room
to recover. You weren't in that airplane. You cannot judge that pilot's
choice the way you are. You have no specific knowledge (any more than the
rest of us) of what was actually happening.

Reread Rick Durden's words about the adoption of parachutes in the
military and observe how your words mimic the attude that had to be
overcome then.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

I'm afraid that your words suggest a different evaluation. You demean
the use of safety devices that have been empirically shown to work in
the field -- devices that you are not being forced to use.

yours,
Michael

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!

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

Hi Ron,

A question for you:

How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
general aviation accidents?

A second question:

If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
afterwards about the circumstances of their accident? Did you assign
any blame to them? Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Your attitude on this subject indicates to me that your answer to
question number 1 will be zero, but if not, I would be interested in
hearing your answer to question number 2.

Dean

(Ron Lee) wrote in message ...
(Rick Durden) wrote:

Ron,

It's interesting to read of your anti-safety perspective...the
approach that if a pilot errs, he is sentenced to death.

Rick, you completely missed my point. I am hardly "anti-safety." I
am opposed to potential crutches that allow poor flight decisions to
be rectified by "pulling the handle."

To suggest that any error means death is unsupportable and a gross
mischaracterization of reality. We don't know that either of these
two events would have been fatal and certainly we do not know that a
series of mistakes led to "pulling the handle." Better to concentrate
on better decision skills than equipping all GA aircraft with a
parachute.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best pilot. But I will
compare my decision making with any other pilot and come out quite
well.

Ron Lee

Dean Wilkinson wrote:

How many pilots that you knew well on a personal level have died in
general aviation accidents?

I'm not Ron, but this is usenet. I've known one.

If your answer is other than zero, what did you say to other people
afterwards about the circumstances of their accident?

He was an experienced Bonanza pilot. He stalled a canard design with which he was
unfamiliar and tried to recover as if it were a Bonnie. That led to a secondary stall
at too low an altitude.

Did you assign any blame to them?

A little.

Might a CAPS system saved their lives?

Maybe - do they work at 600' AGL? Familiarity training would have done the trick. If
he hadn't had a gear problem and elected to return to the field on his ferry flight
home, he also might have had a opportunity to get the experience he needed.

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".