Flyer59 wrote:
It makes little sense to to have an opinion before we have the facts. So let’s discuss this later.
I do not agree. They just stated under what circumstances they would have pulled the chute. An opinion which is perfectly legitimate
Archie wrote:
Someone once told me the CAPS is just there because they couldn’t get the Cirrus spin-certified.
That is not correct. FAA IIRC allowed them to skip the test because of the parachute, however, EASA had not. So, in the end, they had to do it anyway.
From whycirrus.com marketing propaganda :
As a footnote, when Cirrus applied for European certification, the authorities there(initially JAA, later EASA), when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had further questions. A series of spins were performed on their initiative. While not a complete program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Flyer59 wrote:
It makes little sense to to have an opinion before we have the facts.
Now THAT’S an opinion ! 
Pilots make mistakes all the time. A large proportion of private flying accidents are pretty serious errors by the pilot (such as running out of fuel), and another large proportion various levels of errors in judgement (such as losing control in an embedded CB).
Given that, it is to be expected that a proportion of chute pulls will be the result of gross errors or errors in judgement, and the chute “saves” the pilot. From himself.
It is also to be expected that a proportion of chute pulls in itself will be an error in judgement, ending up in an unnecessarily pranged aircraft.
Net/Net, more pilots are alive. Good result.
We have no idea which of the above this incident was.
I think this accident is special because someone was hurt on the ground. It seems this was not severe but nevertheless it makes big difference.
So far the chute discussion was always about the risk for the occupants of the plane versus the damage on the plane etc. But is it morally ok just to pull a chute early to be safe and risk falling on someones head? Fortunately it does not happen often but will the general public really accept on the long run the idea of GA aircraft which are somehow unreliable, therefore need a chute and from time to time will fall on some car, person or house?
The accent is too far for me to understand 90% of what is being said.
This shows the last 3 transmissions
Can anyone tell me which of them was the pilot? Or, was the last one the pilot?
I can then look at the spectrum for any ~20/40/60Hz stuff.
will the general public really accept on the long run the idea of GA aircraft which are somehow unreliable, therefore need a chute and from time to time will fall on some car, person or house?
I quite follow that line of thinking, but we must admit that planes with no chute also make emergency landings from time to time, creating risk to people on the ground. Especially in areas with no “glide clear” rule, such as the USA, where one regularly hears of emergency landings on roads more or less busy. Even here in Western Europe, there are some fields near to me where an EFATO will almost unavoidably land the plane among houses.
Exactly.
An aircraft making an emergency landing is a much bigger danger to people on the ground. It is faster, covers a larger area of ground in its landing run, and when things go badly is more likely to break into pieces, spill the fuel and start a fire.
Yes, but do not put words into my mouth/pen/keyboard that I did not mean: a pilot on an EFATO or other engine failure still has some options on where to go – under the chute, one has none.
