BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:48

Quote:

When I look at the changes in Cirrus training and the results in fatal rates, and I think of my own personal analysis, and the discussions I have had with many Cirrus owners; I have yet to meet an owner who backs your position. Every single discussion I have had about the chute with actual Cirrus owners (not 3rd party pontificators) treat the chute as similar to the second engine in most risk analysis (not all, but a majority of the situations). The only people I have met who agree with your position have been 3rd parties who do not own a Cirrus and are pontificating.

I am sure you can find a Cirrus owner who agrees with you, but that to me would the anecdotal exception which proves the rule. What might be fun, is to do a poll on COPA (I am no longer a member), or ask Cirrus owners on BT to chime in.

Should not surprise anybody. Believers buy the chute non believers don't.

Non believers understand the benefit and realize there are other options or its not worth it.

Believers only see the escape hatch not the traps.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:49

The entire discusion has much more to do with human behavior than it does with flying.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:53

Mike,

You never went to the causes of the accidents. Then asked the question, would a second engine or a chute have made a difference?

The data you present about NTSB fatal rates is never in context of GA, causes, or anything.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:56

Username Protected wrote:

90% reduction. That is AMAZING.

90% of nothing is nothing.

If the problem is so bad and so much worse than any other plane out there then any reduction will show as a high "percentage". This is not something to brag about. You don't take "percentage" to the bank. Regardless, I don't want to debate the Mits.

You're like the Amish guy of aviation. You feel the world should have stopped at X date and everyone should be forced to deal with everything that an airplane was at that moment in time. Future development be damned! It doesn't make sense.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:57

Username Protected wrote:

The entire discusion has much more to do with human behavior than it does with flying.

Flying is a human behavior.

Can't separate the two.

The human determines the the outcome, by and large.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 13:57

Username Protected wrote:

The entire discusion has much more to do with human behavior than it does with flying.

Flying is a human behavior.

Can't separate the two.

The human determines the the outcome, by and large.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:00

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

When I look at the changes in Cirrus training and the results in fatal rates, and I think of my own personal analysis, and the discussions I have had with many Cirrus owners; I have yet to meet an owner who backs your position. Every single discussion I have had about the chute with actual Cirrus owners (not 3rd party pontificators) treat the chute as similar to the second engine in most risk analysis (not all, but a majority of the situations). The only people I have met who agree with your position have been 3rd parties who do not own a Cirrus and are pontificating.

I am sure you can find a Cirrus owner who agrees with you, but that to me would the anecdotal exception which proves the rule. What might be fun, is to do a poll on COPA (I am no longer a member), or ask Cirrus owners on BT to chime in.

Should not surprise anybody. Believers buy the chute non believers don't.

Non believers understand the benefit and realize there are other options or its not worth it.

Believers only see the escape hatch not the traps.

Steve,

Why the assumption that someone who wants an option cannot see the trap of an option?

Just curious why so many pilots think that Cirrus owners are stupid and somehow adrenaline junkies and use the chute as an option to cover from stupid mistakes.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:01

Username Protected wrote:

Just curious why so many pilots think that Cirrus owners are stupid and somehow adrenaline junkies and use the chute as an option to cover from stupid mistakes.

Tim

Because they're jealous.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:15

Username Protected wrote:

Just curious why so many pilots think that Cirrus owners are stupid and somehow adrenaline junkies and use the chute as an option to cover from stupid mistakes.

I don't think that's the case being made. I think the case being made is that they buy the aircraft for its utility, but then use the chute as a feature that allows them to get more utility out of it than it really deserves. Consciously or unconsciously.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:25

Username Protected wrote:

Chute is how to make correct ADM. It is not a flying skill.

More precisely, the chute is what you do when ADM has already failed.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:29

Username Protected wrote:

Just curious why so many pilots think that Cirrus owners are stupid and somehow adrenaline junkies and use the chute as an option to cover from stupid mistakes.

I don't think that's the case being made. I think the case being made is that they buy the aircraft for its utility, but then use the chute as a feature that allows them to get more utility out of it than it really deserves. Consciously or unconsciously.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:32

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think that's the case being made. I think the case being made is that they buy the aircraft for its utility, but then use the chute as a feature that allows them to get more utility out of it than it really deserves. Consciously or unconsciously.

So what?

Many "twin pilots" here tackle situations that they claim they would not tackle in a single. It's been proven time and again that performance of a single or a twin is the same unless "an" or "the" engine quits.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Dec 2014, 14:32

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Believers only see the escape hatch not the traps.

More BS! Why do people feel like they have to talk in terms of absolute truth? "Only"?
I would bet that most of those people buying the chute are very intelligent people and good pilots too. Sure some people don't see the pitfalls. That is like the biggest "Duh". And enhanced training has helped. But for almost all of us, for some time in our lives, there will always be something that we didn't know that we didn't know. I will wager $10k that Mike C screwed up yesterday; maybe even once in 2013.