Ballistic chute saves 4 souls

"Bob Babcock" wrote in message
om...
"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Bob Babcock" wrote in message


Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!

I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one
more
freaking time!

WHY is this so difficult?

Get a life, looser.

Hey hey hey! Ol bob has shown us *he's* Mensa material.

Rich S. wrote ...

Loosing? LOOSING??? it's spelled LOSING fer cripe's sake!

I'm going to have to scream if I read "loosing" instead of "losing" one more
freaking time!

WHY is this so difficult?


You either need to get a dictionary or check the facts of the story.

The Texas plane had an aileron come loose. He did not lose it, it
remained attached.

The transitive verb as used is therefore quite correct: "loosing" not
"losing".

Daniel

(Bob Babcock) wrote in message . com...
Richard Riley wrote in message . ..
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) 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.

Daniel

On 15 Apr 2004 19:24:02 -0700, (Daniel)
wrote:

(Bob Babcock) wrote in message . com...
Richard Riley wrote in message . ..
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock) 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.

Daniel

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

ebs

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

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
wrote:

:On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
deployed
:his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
a
:remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
entered
:a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
4200
:foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
officer
n the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
a
:serious out of balance situation.
:
:They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
when
:the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

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

The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer"
wrote:


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Apr 2004 07:55:49 -0700, (Bob Babcock)
wrote:

:On the 10th a Cirrus SR-20 pilot with 3 passengers on board
deployed
:his ballistic chute over the Canadian Rockies and landed safely on
a
:remote ridge with no injuries. The plane dropped a wing and
entered
:a non recoverable spin or spiral at 9500 feet and landed on the
4200
:foot ridge. The cause is still under investigation but a RCMP
officer
n the scene noted unequal fuel burn in the wing tanks suggesting
a
:serious out of balance situation.
:
:They were enroute from Seattle to Lethbridge, in southern Alberta
when
:the incident happened over the BC Rockies.

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

The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
their skills.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:45:04 GMT, Dillon Pyron
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:18:01 +0100, "Model Flyer"
wrote:
The above would make me leary of ever investing in a Cirrus, so many
are ending up deploying there chutes, or is it bad pilot skills?

Seems to me that having a chute might encourage pilots to bail on a
situation sooner than they should or take chances that are beyond
their skills.

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

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)