From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thoughts on BRS parachute system
To: lml
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:00:43 -0400
Message-ID: <web-360871@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <6dfe4dec0408110023284eaf86@mail.gmail.com>
References: <list-352771@logan.com>
 <6dfe4dec0408110023284eaf86@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Dane Jasper <dane.jasper@gmail.com>:

>Any safety improvement is worthy of a risk/reward analysis.  One such
  aspect is
>an evaluation that includes the possibility of greater risk caused by
  an attitude of
>over confidence in the device itself.  
  
  Scott, this is a bit like saying that an on-screen weather display is
  going to cause accidents or that any other backup system is a bad
  thing because it is likely to cause bad decision making.  By that
  logic, we should skip dual-bus electrical systems, anti-ice systems
  and a pile of other backups that we build into airplanes.
  
  I fly IFR in IMC, in day and night conditions, and if an engine quits,
  I'd certainly appreciate having an extra option to consider in the few
  minutes (or moments) I might have before a forced landing of some
  sort.  If I were over a city, I'd try to glide away if possible, but
  in any case, an airplane falling on a home from the equivilant of 14
  feet above it is FAR better than one doing over 75mph in a glide.  If
  it's a coastal city, you could call for a rescue chopper and head a
  little bit offshore.  If you're over mountains and woods, just open
  the thing and see where you land.
  
  You mention the Cirrus recall to fix the inability to activate the BRS
  - it's important to note that this issue has been fixed (it too far
  too much force to pull the cable), and it's now easier to pull.  No
  reason to condemn the system for an early design issue that's
  resolved.
  
  As for maintenance errors and poor pilot decision-making, those things
  will happen from time to time.  Have you ever made an error?  Clearly,
  not one that put you in an extremely unsafe condition, but people make
  mistakes.  Do you want to potentially die (and kill passengers and/or
  people on the ground) as a result of your error?  Your response sounds
  a bit like you think people who make mistakes (or who's mechanics make
  mistakes) deserve to die for their failings.
  
  I think as much awareness and as many safety features as possible are
  wonderful.  I'm interested in seatbelt mounted airbags as well - am I
  going to do something stupid because I have them?  Nope.
  
  Another way to look at it:  If someone spends years and hundreds of
  thousands of dollars building an airplane, will they want to make a
  bad decision that will cause them to severly damage it by pulling the
  parachute?
  
  You also asked about analysis of Lancair accidents, and could a
  parachute have helped.  In cases where people got into stall/spin
  conditions at reasonably high altitudes, likely it could have helped
  if they were quick to deploy.  In cases where thunderstorms caused
  massive altitude deviations and people lost control, it could have
  been useful.  And, in cases where a simple engine failure caused the
  inability to make a safe landing, it certainly would be useful.
  
  In any case, I'd like to manage risk, and attempt to keep the
  airplanes that I fly on a regular basis well maintained, well built,
  and myself well trained.  With these fundamentals plus a few features
  like AOA, TAWS, TCAS/Skywatch, XM Weather and a backup handheld GPS
  and Nav/Comm, I hope to keep flying a long time.
  
  -Dane