CAPS saves a family

The idea that safety devices somehow rot people's minds is, uh... interesting. Can't say I've ever heard that argument before, but live & learn as they say.

To be clear though, I disagree.
 
Hengelo said:
The idea that safety devices somehow rot people's minds is, uh... interesting. Can't say I've ever heard that argument before, but live & learn as they say.

To be clear though, I disagree.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that in this case. But there’s no question it’s a valid idea. For instance, there are people who would never fly in IMC in a single. The presence of a second engine causes them to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take. Similarly, there are those who’d never fly a piston single without a parachute. That is, they’ll accept the risks of piston singles when there’s a chute — risks they wouldn’t take without one.

This is an accepted psychological phenomenon, but I can’t remember what it’s called.

Edit: Here it is. Risk Compensation
 
Last edited:
It's called risk compensation (well-accepted phenomena), forefather to risk homeostasis theory (highly contested theory, though I agree w/ most of with it).
 
I really should type more carefully; what I'm trying to say is that the idea that because of risk compensation we should impugn safety devices is bonkers. Chuck that second magneto boys, risk compensation will cause people to foolishly take off when only one is working. Spare fuses? Forget 'em, they cause bad ADM. Seatbelts - never use 'em, they constrict blood flow on short final. Deicing? They encourage people to fly into freezing rain. While you're at it, visually inspecting your oil just encourages people to run the engine too hard.

I think it is disingenuous to suggest CAPS is somehow worse for aviation safety because of suspected caps driven risk compensation as the root cause of these fatalities. What sees far more likely is a modern version anti-seatbelt complaints from the 80's

 
Hengelo said:
I really should type more carefully; what I'm trying to say is that the idea that because of risk compensation we should impugn safety devices is bonkers.
Click to expand...
Who said anything like that?
 
Hengelo said:
I really should type more carefully; what I'm trying to say is that the idea that because of risk compensation we should impugn safety devices is bonkers. Chuck that second magneto boys, risk compensation will cause people to foolishly take off when only one is working.
Click to expand...

I recently had some back & forth with a pilot on another site that mentioned doing this exact thing. One ignition wasn't working correctly on run-up but he took off and flew anyway. When I mentioned, ever so kindly, that I thought that wasn't a great idea he came back saying I shouldn't lecture him and insinuate that he was a bad pilot.

So while I agree that safety devices are needed please recognize that there are those that will move the goal post simply because they have a different mindset than the sane folks ... ;)
 
Last edited:
OneCharlieTango said:
Avgas, for one thing.

A better subject line would be "CAPS proves adequate substitute for ADM."

Come to think of it, that would be a good subject for lots of CAPS "saves."
Click to expand...
....and a lot of Non-CAPS fatalities.

But it worked....again. Pretty much nothing in a CAPS equipped plane is fatal. A very good thing.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Perhaps you have not seen the video of the Cirrus descending under a parachute, on fire, with the two occupants leaping to their death.
Click to expand...
I have, that's why the "pretty much". But I think it would have been pretty difficult to dead stick that to a safe landing too.
 
Salty said:
I understand your point. I disagree only because I don't think that's the way it is meant in the thread title. I think it is meant to say that without CAPS, everyone would have died.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you have not flown to Shelter Cove.

If you're out of gliding range of the airport, then your options are to either:

- Land in the Pacific. There are no beaches, just jagged rocks, and the water is frigid. You'll probably die.
- Put it down in tall forest on a steep mountainside. The forests there are not conducive to a soft landing. You'll probably die.

This was one of those occasions where CAPS was absolutely the superior, and only decent, option once the engine stopped.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I don't have a link. It was in the Denver area a few years ago. Horrible cell phone video. The Cirrus hit a tow rope between a glider and tow plane.
Click to expand...
You have misremembered. The Cirrus struck the PA-25 tow plane causing both to crash. The glider landed safely.
 
Alternate headline: Remembering Fuel Saves a Family.

But that would be a LOT of threads to scroll through.

I don't have a problem with CAPS. I do have a problem with repeatedly seeing threads touting it as a miracle device, only to open the thread and discover the thing it saved the pilot from was his own stupidity. Maybe not be so stupid instead?

I often wear a parachute in my Decathlon because I fly a lot of aerobatics. If I ran out of gas and jumped, would I be labeled as wise for wearing a parachute ... or an idiot for running out of gas?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Alternate headline: Remembering Fuel Saves a Family.

But that would be a LOT of threads to scroll through.

I don't have a problem with CAPS. I do have a problem with repeatedly seeing threads touting it as a miracle device, only to open the thread and discover the thing it saved the pilot from was his own stupidity. Maybe not be so stupid instead?

I often wear a parachute in my Decathlon because I fly a lot of aerobatics. If I ran out of gas and jumped, would I be labeled as wise for wearing a parachute ... or an idiot for running out of gas?
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you wrote, but there is a good amount of straw there too.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I often wear a parachute in my Decathlon because I fly a lot of aerobatics. If I ran out of gas and jumped, would I be labeled as wise for wearing a parachute ... or an idiot for running out of gas?
Click to expand...
I'd probably label you "Trevor Jacob II".
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Alternate headline: Remembering Fuel Saves a Family.

But that would be a LOT of threads to scroll through.

I don't have a problem with CAPS. I do have a problem with repeatedly seeing threads touting it as a miracle device, only to open the thread and discover the thing it saved the pilot from was his own stupidity. Maybe not be so stupid instead?

I often wear a parachute in my Decathlon because I fly a lot of aerobatics. If I ran out of gas and jumped, would I be labeled as wise for wearing a parachute ... or an idiot for running out of gas?
Click to expand...
Maybe you misread the headline as, "CAPS saves a family from certain doom caused by factors completely out of their control." Stupidity kills a lot of pilots and passengers. Less stupidity is good. So is less death from it when it nevertheless occurs. After all, invulnerability is one of the FAA's toxic traits
 
Last edited:
I think the title of the thread is fine. It doesn't say "caps saves a smart family" it just says "caps saves a family". No everybody is smart all the time. And I joke, and feel a little bad for picking on them, but on the other hand they survived, and I'm glad they did. They're still smarter than at least 26 old people in TN.
 
If you ran out of gas and had to jump I’m guessing you’d be alive and not give 2 hoots what we called you.
 
Albany Tom said:
I think the title of the thread is fine. It doesn't say "caps saves a smart family" it just says "caps saves a family". No everybody is smart all the time. And I joke, and feel a little bad for picking on them, but on the other hand they survived, and I'm glad they did. They're still smarter than at least 26 old people in TN.
Click to expand...
So the family isn't smart because the pilot isn't? If you get on an airliner and the pilot does something stupid, does that make you stupid because you boarded the flight?
 
donjohnston said:
So the family isn't smart because the pilot isn't? If you get on an airliner and the pilot does something stupid, does that make you stupid because you boarded the flight?
Click to expand...
Well if the pilot is your brother, and you know he's prone to do goofy things, then I'd say it just might...

And really, back to the original topic, the premise that the save only counts if someone doesn't also make a mistake is silly, too.
 
It’s a legit save, it was an engine failure regardless of his actions. He pulled rather than taking the much higher risk alternative. Legit save.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
1) They wouldn’t know if he didn’t tell them.
2) They didn’t travel to the scene. Apparently, we’re more interested in this accident than they are.
3) If the gas meme isn’t true, he might’ve done everything right and this could be a legit CAPS “save.”
Click to expand...
Maybe the land owner's account of the pilot's statement about running out of fuel in post #8 would be considered hearsay. I wonder if anyone checked the tanks after the plane was back on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top