RobertL18C wrote:
72VW1300
A new car then. Probably has GPS.
Aviathor wrote:
In the old days, flying a twin the risk of one engine failing was twice that of when flying a single-engine airplane.In modern times flying a Cirrus with two occupants a chute pull is twice as likely than when there is only one occupant.
Very funny observation. 
Do many men fly in stiletto heels Peter, apart from C210_Flyer of course lol
A couple of days ago I read an article where the author stated some kind of research revealed men would make faster decisions, than women, but women tend to habe a better bias towards right or better decisions. I haven’t followed the sources, but in many cases it aligns with my observation.
In case of the chute, fast decisions are linked to a mindset that provides this possibility. The military have looked into many instances where military pilots did not activate the ejection seat and tried to fly an unflyable plane instead. They found out, that the possibility of the chute has to be briefed before every flight for the crew to be aware of this option – even in military training. This may well be a reason for glider pilots to take fast decision to leave the aircraft: Putting on the parachute does mean you are aware of that option.
If there is a non flying spouse (regardless of male or female), I would guess if the chute is used to ease him up, then he might have this option very present all the time. Perhaps this presence decreases with flying spouses.
In case of the fuel cap I think it’s unprecice (and scientifically inaccurate) to count them as “lives saved”, because you can’t save someone who isn’t in danger. Unless, of course, the remaining fuel wouldn’t have lasted for a diversion to the nearest airport. Of course, it is good that the system works, as it has been tested and was designed for the integration of that airframe. In many microlight installations, the chute would do more harm than good (and the success rate in those installations isn’t anywhere near that of the Cirrus or Cessna installaions).
In case of the fuel cap I think it’s unprecice (and scientifically inaccurate) to count them as “lives saved”
One could say that for the vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls.
Of course it could be debated both ways, using the argument that a forced landing could kill the occupant(s).
The entire controversy surrounding the Cirrus chute boils down to this, IMHO.
Peter wrote:
The entire controversy surrounding the Cirrus chute boils down to this, IMHO.
Agreed. There is no doubt that the CAPS is useful and does save people’s lives now and then, but counting “lives saved” with every single chute pull is just marketing hype.
One could say that for the vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls.
Sceptics can, of course, say anything. But there’s no facts that support this strange theory. Many of the CAPS pulls were in IMC after loss of control, so a forced landing would not have been possible. Of course loss of control doesn’t happen to TB20 pilots.
The facts say: The fatal accident rate for the Cirrus for the last 3 years in sequence was lower than of the rest of GA. And that although the typcial mission profile for the SR2x is much more ambitious than for big parts of the other SEPs. SR22s are flown IFR and long distance much more than many other types.
Flyer59 wrote:
Of course loss of control doesn’t happen to TB20 pilots.
Do you really think that making facetious remarks like this support your position ?
A little irony every now and then should be possible, right? I think everybody can take that much :-)
But you’re right so far that this topic should maybe be dumped. It became boring a long time ago.
