Same argument the Americans, French, Italians, and British (but not the
Germans...) used during WWI, relative to letting pilots wear parachutes.
Can't let those cowards run off and save their worthless lives, can we?

Go down to the driver's license office, and grab the first proud
16-year-old kid you see with a brand-spanking-new driver's license. Take
him to a field an introduce him to a basic 1918 automobile. Odds are, he
can't drive it. Spark advance? Gears? Clutch? Hand brake? *Mechanical*
brakes? Non-powered steering? Starting on hills? Huh?

But take a kid who just soloed an airplane for the first time and plop him
in a basic 1918 aeroplane, and he can probably take a pretty good stab at
it...especially if he learned to fly on a taildragger like an Aviat Husky.
Which, of course, is currently in production.

Everyone bitches about how we're still flying 1930s engines...well, guess
what, folks, General Aviation is still flying 1920s airplanes, which, for
the most part, require 1920s skills. We measure our speeds with a
mechanical pressure gauge, we change our attitude with levers attached to
cables that run over pulleys and move control surfaces, whose relative
positions have to be coordinated and change with the application of power,
amount of fuel burned, etc.

I'm not personally complaining, mind you...I fly for the fun and the
challenge. But if someone has the attitude that flying is *supposed* to be
difficult; is *supposed* to take 1920s skills, and if you don't measure up,
you are expected to buck up and die like an aviator... well, I hope those
who hold that attitude don't own tricycle-geared airplanes. People
complained about THAT newfangled invention, too.

The Cirrus represents the first true innovation in General Aviation in
about 50 years. We homebuilders should be proud. We proved the viability
of composite structures for everyday aircraft, and full-aircraft ballistic
recovery parachutes proved themselves in the ultralight/homebuilt world.
Other innovations, like electronic ignition, got their start in
homebuilding as well.

Sure, there are going to be cases where guys use the CAPS where a skilled
pilot could have recovered the aircraft without damage. But the point of
the CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos. I'm content to leave that
particular controversy to the insurance companies and courts to decide.

Ron Wanttaja




Thank you Ron for a very good perspective on the BRS debate. I think that you
could have save a lot of time and typing by just cutting to the chase with the
one and most important statement:

"But the point of CAPS is to save lives, not nurse egos."

What we have been hearing here is a lot of egos say "I could have done
better....blah, blah, blah". The fact is that not a one of them was in the air
with the pilot at the time and not a single one knows for certain that they
could have done better or would have done anything different. The true benefit
to CAPS is that it gives the pilot another option to save their lives.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)