Ballistic chute saves 4 souls

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:46 -0700, Edwin B. Sullivan
wrote:

I heard very second hand, so no details, that there were 2 separate
successful Cirrus BRS deployments over the weekend.

The paper article noted that there was a succesful deployment on
another Cirrus in Texas 2 years ago. Perhaps you are hearing this
info as the same weekend. ...

No, there was a Cirrus under canopy in Florida this weekend also.

Sounds like the chutes are working fine, kind of wonder about what's
under them and who's driving it.

If a pilot is not confident of his or her ability to safely land an
aircraft in any given situation, they probably can't. In these cases, the
CAPS is a good idea.

Ultimately, I doubt you'll see a real change in the accident rates. I
think we'll see a reduction in the number of off-airport forced landings as
some pilots activate the CAPS systems. As some of these "landings"
occasionally become crashes with fatalities, we'll probably see a net
reduction in fatalities.

In most situations, the argument can always be made that the pilot should
have been able to land safely. But tapping on a keyboard is not the same
as being aloft with a sick airplane. I tend to be reminded of the
situation in WWI..."We don't give our pilots parachutes, as they'll be too
willing to abandon their aircraft in an emergency."

Ultimately, I think this issue will get resolved in the classic way: By
the insurance companies, and by the courts. I think if Avemco, et. al,
think they're paying out money they wouldn't have had to if the plane
hadn't had a CAPS, they'll start upping the Cirrus rates.

And if they find they pay out a lot less for Cirrus claims, they'll up the
rates to everyone that DOESN'T have a CAPS. You can replace a lot of $300K
Cirruses with what you'd shell out on a single wrongful death suit.

I suspect at some point, a grieving widow will sue Cirrus, and the company
will claim that the pilot had an onboard safety system and didn't chose to
use it. If Cirrus wins...the product liability underwriters will probably
force the other aircraft manufacturers to follow suit.

Stay tuned....

Ron "Pass the popcorn" Wanttaja

You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three
ways to look at this:
1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with
$300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability;
and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft.
Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be
up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in
the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do
not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.)
2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument
being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If
automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the
aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it."
3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made
it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares
the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a
reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins!

Peter