Alexis wrote:
Of course the chute saved lives.
But “The chute saved lives” is not the same thing as as “Every parachute deployment saved lives”.
I agree. But a marketing department of a company with a product with such a USP would be really stupid to not push that topic. If you read the guide though they make it very clear that it is the pilot who has to decide what is best in a given situation.
I guess we can agree on this: There are situations in which the CAPS system can and has saved lives that would have been lost in non-BRS aircraft.
e.g.
7:40
15:50
I don’t have the time to look for the video of his “pull early pull often” speech but it’s out there for sure.
7:40: Exactly what the POH says too. Do not descend below the hard deck altitude if you cannout reach a runway but pull the chute. Of course that makes sense because the chances to survive/not hurt yourself are much higher with the chute. That does NOT mean that other pilots without BRS systems cannot survive an off-airport landing. It only means that the cite is the SAFER method (is that one really so hard to understand?)
15.50: Standard practice and in every good Cirrus checklist. “500 ft, CAPS active”. It means nothing else than that above 500 ft the parachute can save you, while it cannot below 500 ft. Of course (and this is the way it is taught) you will land if the a) the runway is long enough or b) if there is a runway wihin reach. But if you fly through 500 ft and have an EFATO and are not sure you can land – you pull. Simply becasue you have the highest chance of survival.
Rick Beach, by the way, is a very fine gentleman who has nothing else on his mind but making Cirrus flying safer. I just met him twi weeks ago near San Francisco (mini fly-in :-)) and I am convinced that he is right. HIS ideas which went into the CSIP programs for teaching Cirrus pilots have lowered the fatal Cirrus accident rates by a big margin. There is nothing to not like.
Airborne_Again wrote:
But “The chute saved lives” is not the same thing as as “Every parachute deployment saved lives”.
The gentleman in the video above is Rick Beach, who is AFAIK not on the Cirrus payroll, but rather a Cirrus pilot volunteering a lot of his time to educate his fellow pilots who want to listen by the means of COPA, a type club which is totally independent of Cirrus. What he says about chute deployment makes perfect sense once you study the evidence.
He has posted his lengthy thoughts about calling the survivable CAPS pulls “saves” and has himself suggested it might not be the best terminology. I’m too lazy (and bored by this same discussion) to look up his original post, but one of the arguments which I retained (and support) is that only because someone may have also been saved by other means doesn’t make a chute pull less of a “save”. It is disingenious to write that this is “Cirrus marketing” when in fact it is one very dedicated person of a type club who invented the term, first for internal, non-public purposes of counting these events (successful chute pulls).
If I jump into the water to pull out someone who is in distress, and someone else throws a life buoy after the person, would anyone contest the fact that I “saved” that person, even though he might have got hold of the buoy and survived without my actions? Or even because he might have survived without me or the buoy?
This discussion is tiring to say the least, not least because it may convince casual Cirrus pilots not to use the parachute when it would in fact have been their best option.
+1
One day there will be a shute induced fatality. Not necessarily because the shute will fail, but it might fall onto a wind turbine or some other obstacle. We will return to this discussion on this very day.
Robin_253 wrote:
One day there will be a shute induced fatality.
Seems like you’re really looking forward to that day. Tell you what, it won’t change my assessment, because one incident won’t change the statistics any more.
BTW, it’s spelled chute.
That’s a completely ridiculous – and cynical – statement anyway – and it really speaks for itself. No comment necessary.
Rwy20 wrote:
Seems like you’re really looking forward to that day
Not in any way! The point I was trying to make is that nothing is 100% reliable and even if it (the shute) would be 100% reliable there are external factors which might critically affect an aircraft going down on parachute. When it rains people get wet. As simple as it gets. Exactly as I said in my initial post on the subject. Using a shute is risky. When there is a risk you are exposed. Your life is exposed.
Rwy20 wrote:
Tell you what, it won’t change my assessment,
The good news is that you make a risk assessment. Other people here say that pulling a shute is “no brainer”. Whatever I do in an airplane I try to think trough consequences. “Pulling early and often” is certainly not a statement that encourages risk assessment and proper airmanship.
Rwy20 wrote:
one incident won’t change the statistics any more.
On one hand you are right, because it’s difficult to talk about statistics today and one accident will not change much. On the other hand this one accident will change “statistics” dramatically.
Alexis wrote:
That’s a completely ridiculous – and cynical
In my opinion a BRS enhances safety. I’m missing it when flying at night, I’m missing it whenever I hear about another mid air. But it’s another safety enhancing device, just like say a TCAS. Might save you life or not.
