CAPS saves a family

F

Flapsonfire

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
Flapsonfire
Awesome. Hopefully BRS will make it available for more models.
 
Did anyone read the comments in the article? I mean it is baffling how different people interpret this story.

Examples:
1) It must be a military airplane since it has a parachute
2) Thank God the airplane owner installed a parachute (like it’s an added feature that the pilot was smart to add himself)
3) The airplane has a parachute and the seats also each have a parachute
4) If I’m a pilot I’ll have a parachute that’s smart
5) The 4 passengers including 2 children jumped out of the airplane with their parachutes and we are still looking for 1 child
5) Lucky passengers ejected in time
6) It’s a skydiving airplane
7) Do children have special children parachutes? Wouldn’t they fall out of an adult parachute?
8) The SR22 is 1.4m
9) The author of the story was informed about CAPS, the author said they interviewed a local resident to get more information on the parachute (suggesting a local resident was an expert instead of doing a Google search about Cirrus aircraft instead?)
 
mandm said:
Did anyone read the comments in the article? I mean it is baffling how different people interpret this story.

Examples:

2) Thank God the airplane owner installed a parachute (like it’s an added feature that the pilot was smart to add himself)
Click to expand...
There are planes, such as C182, where this can be done.
 
mandm said:
Did anyone read the comments in the article? I mean it is baffling how different people interpret this story.

Examples:
1) It must be a military airplane since it has a parachute
2) Thank God the airplane owner installed a parachute (like it’s an added feature that the pilot was smart to add himself)
3) The airplane has a parachute and the seats also each have a parachute
4) If I’m a pilot I’ll have a parachute that’s smart
5) The 4 passengers including 2 children jumped out of the airplane with their parachutes and we are still looking for 1 child
5) Lucky passengers ejected in time
6) It’s a skydiving airplane
7) Do children have special children parachutes? Wouldn’t they fall out of an adult parachute?
8) The SR22 is 1.4m
9) The author of the story was informed about CAPS, the author said they interviewed a local resident to get more information on the parachute (suggesting a local resident was an expert instead of doing a Google search about Cirrus aircraft instead?)
Click to expand...
Of course the comments are always all over the place on something like this, kinda cracks me up. The author and owner of the blog is my neighbor (it wasn't me she interviewed, not that I'm an expert on the SR22) but I think she does a pretty darn good job on these kinds of stories.
 
mandm said:
Did anyone read the comments in the article? I mean it is baffling how different people interpret this story.

Examples:
1) It must be a military airplane since it has a parachute
2) Thank God the airplane owner installed a parachute (like it’s an added feature that the pilot was smart to add himself)
3) The airplane has a parachute and the seats also each have a parachute
4) If I’m a pilot I’ll have a parachute that’s smart
5) The 4 passengers including 2 children jumped out of the airplane with their parachutes and we are still looking for 1 child
5) Lucky passengers ejected in time
6) It’s a skydiving airplane
7) Do children have special children parachutes? Wouldn’t they fall out of an adult parachute?
8) The SR22 is 1.4m
9) The author of the story was informed about CAPS, the author said they interviewed a local resident to get more information on the parachute (suggesting a local resident was an expert instead of doing a Google search about Cirrus aircraft instead?)
Click to expand...
#8 ain't that far off.
 
Update on this...so the gal who's land happened to be where this plane 'landed' said the plane was hanging in the trees and they were yelling up to them to not move 'cause it was in a precarious position hanging on a branch. Instead the pilot moved to the back to get his phone and it fell to the ground...whoops, another case of married to our phones...Once on the ground the pilot said that he had forgotten to get gas and they ran out 5 minutes after departing Shelter Cove. There is no fuel at Shelter Cove. Really big 'whoops'...
 
Flapsonfire said:
Update on this...so the gal who's land happened to be where this plane 'landed' said the plane was hanging in the trees and they were yelling up to them to not move 'cause it was in a precarious position hanging on a branch. Instead the pilot moved to the back to get his phone and it fell to the ground...whoops, another case of married to our phones...Once on the ground the pilot said that he had forgotten to get gas and they ran out 5 minutes after departing Shelter Cove. There is no fuel at Shelter Cove. Really big 'whoops'...
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I’m feeling contrary tonight.

If you can describe this situation as caps saving a families life, then you can equally use my situation as “lack of CAPS saved my families life”.
 
Salty said:
I’m feeling contrary tonight.

If you can describe this situation as caps saving a families life, then you can equally use my situation as “lack of CAPS saved my families life”.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
PaulS said:
How so?
Click to expand...
There's no evidence that the family would not have been saved if they didn't have CAPs. There's no evidence my family would not have been saved with CAPs.

Neither event proves anything but that CAPs can work, and not having CAPs can also work.
 
Salty said:
Neither event proves anything but that CAPs can work, and not having CAPs can also work.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are trying to say "correlation does not equal causation".
 
Salty said:
There's no evidence that the family would not have been saved if they didn't have CAPs. There's no evidence my family would not have been saved with CAPs.

Neither event proves anything but that CAPs can work, and not having CAPs can also work.
Click to expand...
Too many negatives in those sentences, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is substantial evidence that caps gives you a powerful extra option in many more situations then pilot skill alone gives you. Things like midairs, loc in weather, spins, engine outs in inhospitable areas.... the list is as large as the number of incidents that can happen, all of which you get an extra option to save yourself, unless your luck really ran out.

So of course pilot skill can save you if the conditions warrant it. But in situations that have no hope of "skilling" yourself out of trouble, Caps is great option. There are over 100 saves with caps, some incidents, like this one, caused by stupidity, some caused by very bad luck. There's plenty of evidence now of those successes.
 
PaulS said:
Too many negatives in those sentences, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is substantial evidence that caps gives you a powerful extra option in many more situations then pilot skill alone gives you. Things like midairs, loc in weather, spins, engine outs in inhospitable areas.... the list is as large as the number of incidents that can happen, all of which you get an extra option to save yourself, unless your luck really ran out.

So of course pilot skill can save you if the conditions warrant it. But in situations that have no hope of "skilling" yourself out of trouble, Caps is great option. There are over 100 saves with caps, some incidents, like this one, caused by stupidity, some caused by very bad luck. There's plenty of evidence now of those successes.
Click to expand...
Take out the negatives and you lose my point and end up with an inaccurate statement like the thread title.
 
PaulS said:
The title is accurate.
Click to expand...
Partially. It's accurate in the same way my statement was. Lack of a CAPS saved my family. Also accurate in the same way: The windshield saved the family. The landing gear saved the family. The seats saved the family. The oxygen in the cockpit saved the family. The pilot not panicking and doing something stupid saved the family. Not shooting a missile at the plane saved the family.

In fact, it wasn't one single thing that "saved the family". It's not accurate. It's not even shown that CAPS did a better job than not using it would have. It is only accurate to say CAPS performed successfully. It didn't let them die, which is a good thing, but is not the same thing as saving them. There is no evidence that the family would have been injured without CAPS. To make such a statement is equivalent to me stating that with CAPS my family would have been injured. It might very well have happened that way, but there's no evidence of that either.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
There's no evidence that the family would not have been saved if they didn't have CAPs. There's no evidence my family would not have been saved with CAPs.

Neither event proves anything but that CAPs can work, and not having CAPs can also work.
Click to expand...
I'm this case, CAPS is what saved them. If they hadn't had CAPS, perhaps superior pilot skills (not in evidence) would have saved them. In the absence of both--well at least there wouldn't have been a post-crash fire.
 
Salty said:
Partially. It's accurate in the same way my statement was. Lack of a CAPS saved my family. Also accurate in the same way: The windshield saved the family. The landing gear saved the family. The seats saved the family. The oxygen in the cockpit saved the family. The pilot not panicking and doing something stupid saved the family. Not shooting a missile at the plane saved the family.

In fact, it wasn't one single thing that "saved the family". It's not accurate. It's not even shown that CAPS did a better job than not using it would have. It is only accurate to say CAPS performed successfully. It didn't let them die, which is a good thing, but is not the same thing as saving them. There is no evidence that the family would have been injured without CAPS. To make such a statement is equivalent to me stating that with CAPS my family would have been injured. It might very well have happened that way, but there's no evidence of that either.
Click to expand...
Actually Caps did save them, as soon as he pulled the chute he was done flying so it doesn't matter what his skill level was. Doesn't matter what you did for your family, missiles, oxygen, whatever, not relevent. Caps was the surest choice for him, kudos to him for using it. Since his ADM was very suspect if the alleged fuel comment is actually true, it was the best decision he made that day.
 
@Salty I think you are splitting hairs. That's like saying the "brakes didn't stop the car" because something else might have. The pulled the chute in an emergency, and they all lived. What more do you want?
 
Hengelo said:
@Salty I think you are splitting hairs. That's like saying the "brakes didn't stop the car" because something else might have. The pulled the chute in an emergency, and they all lived. What more do you want?
Click to expand...
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."
 
Avgas indeed! Don't we all. I think your suggestion is similar to "seatbelts prove an adequate substitute for careful driving." Ok, we all agree. Does that really mean seatbelts don't save lives?

Why the axe to grind?
 
From out here in the has-been cheap seats, I could see mild hostility at cheerleading for the chute as fear of the second-tier effect of pedestrian support for the compulsory implementation of it. Which is (or at least I regard...) an economic non-starter for a good chunk of owners who are already hanging to the hobby by a thread.
 
IMO there are a lot of things that get you more safety per buck than CAPS does. For example putting fuel in your airplane... But there is nothing else that is likely to be helpful in as many different situations as CAPS.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
“Forgot to get gas?” Seriously?
Click to expand...
There's no mention of fuel being available at that airport in either the A/FD or online sources. I guess he didn't make himself familiar with "all available information."
 
Hengelo said:
Avgas indeed! Don't we all. I think your suggestion is similar to "seatbelts prove an adequate substitute for careful driving." Ok, we all agree. Does that really mean seatbelts don't save lives?

Why the axe to grind?
Click to expand...
No axe. But this is a CAPS save in the same way seatbelts save drunk drivers.
 
I think a helmet on a motorcycle would be a better analogy. Either way I'm happy they didn't all have to die as punishment for some bad Pyloting.

It would be pretty horrible if anybody ever hesitated to pull the chute because of all the internet shade they'd seen thrown at CAPS use.

The formula seems pretty simple: CAPS good, hazing people who use it bad.
 
Why is pointing out that the chute may not have been the only way to resolve a situation considered "hazing people who use it"? It just bugs me when people pretend that everyone would have died if not for the chute, when that's simply not a fact. I'm not saying chutes are bad, or pilots are bad for using chutes. I'd love to have it as an option. I'm not going to consider it a silver bullet, but it would be great to have the option. Frankly, a chute is more likely to have killed me than saved me in my particular situation, but I hesitate to say that because I know some will interpret that to mean I'm anti-chute.
 
There is a difference between "the chute saved their lives" and "there was no other way to save their lives"

If I get rescued by lifeboat A and not lifeboat B am I wrong in saying lifeboat A saved my life?
 
Hengelo said:
There is a difference between "the chute saved their lives" and "there was no other way to save their lives"

If I get rescued by lifeboat A and not lifeboat B am I wrong in saying lifeboat A saved my life?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Intent and sarcasm are two things the internet is outlandishly bad at ;)
 
For what it's worth I don't think anyone is saying that the chute is the only way, just in many cases like this, it's the best way. For your situation @Salty a chute may have indeed been a better option if you were within the demonstrated parameters. If not, then it wouldn't have been better.
 
Salty said:
Partially. It's accurate in the same way my statement was. Lack of a CAPS saved my family. Also accurate in the same way: The windshield saved the family. The landing gear saved the family. The seats saved the family. The oxygen in the cockpit saved the family. The pilot not panicking and doing something stupid saved the family. Not shooting a missile at the plane saved the family.

In fact, it wasn't one single thing that "saved the family". It's not accurate. It's not even shown that CAPS did a better job than not using it would have. It is only accurate to say CAPS performed successfully. It didn't let them die, which is a good thing, but is not the same thing as saving them. There is no evidence that the family would have been injured without CAPS. To make such a statement is equivalent to me stating that with CAPS my family would have been injured. It might very well have happened that way, but there's no evidence of that either.
Click to expand...
Oh comeon. CAPS absolutely saved them. If the guy landed with 5 gallons and forgot to get gas… who are we kidding here. Lucky he remembered where the CAPS deploy from.
 
Flying Doc said:
Oh comeon. CAPS absolutely saved them. If the guy landed with 5 gallons and forgot to get gas… who are we kidding here. Lucky he remembered where the CAPS deploy from.
Click to expand...
What he forgot was checking to see if the field had gas before he went there.
 
This thread shows what CAPS does to people’s minds.

The pilot burned the tanks nearly dry, landed, found no gas at the field, then put his family in the airplane, and took off. If he hadn’t had CAPS, they would’ve crashed and PoA would’ve been rightly in high dudgeon about what a moron he was, how he gives yet another black eye to GA, how dimwits like him affect insurance for all of us, etc., etc.

The CAPS part of the story is largely irrelevant. If the pilot weren’t an idiot, the Subject would be “Chart Supplement Use Saves Family.”
 
OneCharlieTango said:
This thread shows what CAPS does to people’s minds.

The pilot burned the tanks nearly dry, landed, found no gas at the field, then put his family in the airplane, and took off. If he hadn’t had CAPS, they would’ve crashed and PoA would’ve been rightly in high dudgeon about what a moron he was, how he gives yet another black eye to GA, how dimwits like him affect insurance for all of us, etc., etc.

The CAPS part of the story is largely irrelevant. If the pilot weren’t an idiot, the Subject would be “Chart Supplement Use Saves Family.”
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, maybe, but most likely not, re: what caps does to people's minds. I have over 500 hours in Cirrus, I never once took off thinking "well if what I've decided doesn't work out I have a parachute."

Crappy pilots are crappy pilots, good pilots occasionally screw up, I'll bet he thought he had enough fuel, but I'll also bet he didn't confirm if he had enough fuel. One of the problems is when tanks get this low, it gets harder to confirm how much fuel is in them. I rented Cirrus, first flight I needed to know how much fuel was in the tanks visually. They have tabs, which for the 22 is 30 gallons a side. The planes I was flying had totalizers that had to be set when refueled. If I couldn't confirm the level via the tabs (level was below tabs) on the first flight, I'd order fuel. Who knows if the last guy reset the totalizer correctly? It's just one of my many personal mins.

There are pilots comfortable with taking off with almost empty tanks, that's another big issue. Personally I'm comfortable landing with at least an hour's worth of fuel, taking off with an hour's worth of fuel is not on my list of things to do. On a 22 an hour's worth of fuel for take off is probably close to 30 gallons accounting for startup, taxi, runup, then climb. Sounds like this guy took of with less than 10 gallons.

I agree with the rest of your post, and while I don't know if the guy is moron, he might be an ace, but he definitely screwed up big time. Hopefully he learned a lesson.
 
All of the planes I've flown have had fuel dip sticks in them.

Confession time: I once landed at an airport near Grand Coulee Dam, thinking that I could get fuel there. It turns out I had misread the A/FD entry, because I thought it was self-service when it wasn't, and there was no one around to operate the fuel pump. :redface:

I used the dipstick to carefully verify that there was enough fuel to get to an airport with self-service fuel (Lake Chelan) and still have a safe and legal reserve left. If that hadn't been the case, I would have had to spend the night in the plane, waiting until the attended hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top