Cirrus down under chute in NC, right next to house. No injuries.

Fearless Tower said:
The problem is that in the big picture, it isn't about a 'disdain' for parachute equipped aircraft. Many Cirrus proponents seem to want to paint it that way. "Those Cirrus bashers just have airplane envy".

But I don't think that is the case here. I certainly have no problem with Cirrus or BRS. I think it is a fine airplane. I have never wanted to own one personally simply because it doesn't meet my mission requirements (space and useful load). Several others who have posted on this thread feel similarly.

Unfortunately, while many Cirrus proponents are busy painting the 'us vs them' argument, they are missing out on the reality that this accident was entirely avoidable and the fact that yet another pilot ran his airplane out of gas (BRS equipped or not) does not reflect well on the pilot community.

I don't think anyone is saying the guy should have let his airplane run out of gas and sucked it up and taken his chances dead sticking into the trees in IMC. We are simply wishing the dude had used some proper ADM and planned and operated his flight IAW FARs avoiding the situation in the first place.

To borrow from Frank Borman; "the superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill (or superior technology - added by me).

Let's all strive to be superior pilots.
Click to expand...

As a new member of POA, and somebody who is planning to train in and ultimately purchase a Cirrus I'm truly enjoying the discussion on this topic because it's making me think a lot about my training in addition to the safety features of the airplane.
I've been going through scenarios like this particular one in my head over and over to try and think through what I'd do and it's not even that easy with days and weeks to think about it. I can't imagine trying to make a decision that wasn't previously thought through in mere seconds with my life in the balance.
With these "running out of fuel" threads I've done a lot of reading about fuel planning, reserves, and tools to ensure I remember to switch my tanks. This is all exceptional knowledge to have top of mind.
I'm also thinking about emergency situations where I'm dead sticking in both IMC and clear conditions (no matter what the cause) and deciding between using the chute or making an emergency landing and it's still tricky. I honestly think it's very beneficial to think through as many scenarios as possible ahead of time to make the decisions in the heat of the moment easier so I applaud this discussion and all the various points of view.
I've realized that even on a clear day with little wind there's still a risk to landing in a field or on a road. Granted there's also a risk with deploying the chute because it could potentially fail and knowing my luck I'd land on the top of a radio tower. However, I suspect on average the risk of a chute pull on a clear day is still probably lower than trying to land dead stick anywhere but an airport.
I read somewhere that a Cirrus pilot needs to mentally train through various scenarios so that the chute pull is automatic in scenario X or Y because in the moment if you're thinking about "do i pull it or not" you're likely going to wait too long and be forced into the potentially higher risk alternative.
 
Everskyward said:
Your argument only makes sense if BRS-equipped airplanes are running out of fuel at a much higher rate than non BRS-equipped airplanes. Is this true?
Click to expand...

I think that there's some sort of psychological difference when it comes to pilots making mistakes and living with BRS versus pilots who make dumb mistakes and just die.
I've seen several fatal crash articles over the past several weeks (Cessnas and Pipers) and they were almost all related to VFR pilots flying into IMC or otherwise doing dumb things that they shouldn't have. However, other than the guy who killed his entire family in CA I haven't noticed a mention of any of them here. However if they would all have had a chute and lived I suspect every one of them would be mentioned here.

As a pilot in training I feel that every crash is extremely valuable to learn from, and I also think that equally every BRS deployment is something to learn from.
 
Everskyward said:
Your argument only makes sense if BRS-equipped airplanes are running out of fuel at a much higher rate than non BRS-equipped airplanes. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Is he arguing that pilots of BRS-equipped airplanes are more likely to commit such errors?
 
Everskyward said:
Your argument only makes sense if BRS-equipped airplanes are running out of fuel at a much higher rate than non BRS-equipped airplanes. Is this true?
Click to expand...
You either misunderstood my argument, or I didn't articulate it clearly.

My argument has nothing to do with BRS or non-BRS airplanes. It frustrates me to see these internet arguments that try to make this out to be a BRS vs non-BRS.

My point is simply that this is a case of a pilot who ran his airplane out of gas. Considering fuel exhaustion incidents/accidents continue to plague general aviation, that does not reflect well on the overall GA pilot community.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I would sincerely hope that my reply to Mari clarifies my point.
Click to expand...

I think we all posted at approximately the same time so we didn't see your response before hitting "submit reply".

I understand your point but it doesn't answer why some people are "Cirrus bashers".
 
Fearless Tower said:
You either misunderstood my argument, or I didn't articulate it clearly.

My argument has nothing to do with BRS or non-BRS airplanes. It frustrates me to see these internet arguments that try to make this out to be a BRS vs non-BRS.

My point is simply that this is a case of a pilot who ran his airplane out of gas. Considering fuel exhaustion incidents/accidents continue to plague general aviation, that does not reflect well on the overall GA pilot community.
Click to expand...

I understood your point, and you nailed it. I wonder if some of these accidents are due to pilots wanting to save a few bucks of fuel, knowing the next airport has cheaper fuel. If you fly an airplane you need to feed the beast, risking running out of fuel to save a few bucks is one of the dumbest-ass thing you can do.
 
Fearless Tower said:
To borrow from Frank Borman; "the superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill (or superior technology - added by me).

Let's all strive to be superior pilots.
Click to expand...

Great advice. but what if we fail in our quest to become superior pilots, or generally *are* superior pilots just having an off day?

Doesn't it make sense to have the best option for survival in spite of our personal failings, if the need arises?

If somebody is a crummy pilot, and uses the parachute to make up for it, that's pretty dumb and we ALL agree on that. I have not seen one post here that goes against that.

But these threads often turn into Cirrus or 'chute bashing, saying the BRS leads to complacency, poor pilot proficiency, blah blah blah. Why can't we accept that there are excellent and bad pilots in every type of airplane, and stop generalizing about pilots based on the *equipment* they use instead of their choices and decision process?
 
If the existence of BRS-equipped aircraft results in more incidents or accidents, that would be worth knowing, but it needs to be based on data, not supposition. Has anyone seen such data?
 
bullwinkle said:
But these threads often turn into Cirrus or 'chute bashing, saying the BRS leads to complacency, poor pilot proficiency, blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what I am saying here.

I think that may (key word) be a factor in some (another key word) Cirrus accidents, but that is hardly a reason to avoid a Cirrus or BRS.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But that isn't what I am saying here.

I think that may (key word) be a factor in some (another key word) Cirrus accidents, but that is hardly a reason to avoid a Cirrus or BRS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't get that vibe from your comments. Just pointing out that it happens.

Some of this reminds me of Dale Earnhardt. He absolutely refused to wear the HANS device to protect against basal spinal fractures in high speed impacts. He was grandfathered in and so not required to wear one, and he didn't, and in fact laughed off the need for such a device.

I'll give ya'll one guess what killed him.
 
I'm now curious about how much Cub Bashing will commence now that CubCrafters has an approved BRS solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
I'm now curious about how much Cub Bashing will commence now that CubCrafters has an approved BRS solution.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I saw that.. and IMHO,,, That style of plane will spend 90% of its time at an altitude TOO low for the chute to save anyone...:rolleyes:
 
bullwinkle said:
Yeah, I didn't get that vibe from your comments. Just pointing out that it happens.

Some of this reminds me of Dale Earnhardt. He absolutely refused to wear the HANS device to protect against basal spinal fractures in high speed impacts. He was grandfathered in and so not required to wear one, and he didn't, and in fact laughed off the need for such a device.

I'll give ya'll one guess what killed him.
Click to expand...

There were only six drivers wearing the HANS device the day Earnhardt was killed and it was not mandated until some tome after that accident.
 
bullwinkle said:
Yeah, I didn't get that vibe from your comments. Just pointing out that it happens.

Some of this reminds me of Dale Earnhardt. He absolutely refused to wear the HANS device to protect against basal spinal fractures in high speed impacts. He was grandfathered in and so not required to wear one, and he didn't, and in fact laughed off the need for such a device.

I'll give ya'll one guess what killed him.
Click to expand...

I don't in anyway mean to start a rift here, but I'm a relatively green (yet licensed private and working toward my instrument) pilot, which is why I try not too give too much advice on this forum (when I do, I am always sure to give a disclaimer as to my lack of experience ha ha). However, in this regard, I have quite a bit more expertise. I have worked in the racing industry for quite a while, (my career and livelihood happens to be the Nascar Sprint Cup series on the crew side...pays for my flying). While you are absolutely correct that Dale Sr refused to wear a Hans device. (In his time, Dale basically ran Nascar, more than the general public will ever know,and this would be a very different sport if he was still around). Not saying the Hans device would have saved him or not, however, ultimately there was a lot more to it than just a Hans device(I'll skip the boring details). I know very well two people very close to that situation. The events of that day still blow my mind, forever changed the sport without a doubt. I digress, never flown a cirrus and have no dog in that fight, yet at the end of the day, though there are exceptions(and wonder why cirrus's keep falling out of the sky) modern technology can be a great asset, yet we can't (and are fools if we do) let technology be something we constantly rely on.
 
Last edited:
TRocket said:
I don't in anyway mean to start a rift here, but I'm a relatively green (yet licensed private and working toward my instrument) pilot, which is why I try not too give too much advice on this forum (when I do, I am always sure to give a disclaimer as to my lack of experience ha ha). However, in this regard, I have quite a bit more expertise. I have worked in the racing industry for quite a while, (my career and livelihood happens to be the Nascar Sprint Cup series on the crew side...pays for my flying). While you are absolutely correct that Dale Sr refused to wear a Hans device. (In his time, Dale basically ran Nascar, more than the general public will ever know,and this would be a very different sport if he was still around). Not saying the Hans device would have saved him or not, however, ultimately there was a lot more to it than just a Hans device(I'll skip the boring details). I know very well two people very close to that situation. The events of that day still blow my mind, forever changed the sport without a doubt. I digress, never flown a cirrus and have no dog in that fight, yet at the end of the day, though there are exceptions(and wonder why cirrus's keep falling out of the sky) modern technology can be a great asset, yet we can't (and are fools if we do) let technology be something we constantly rely on.
Click to expand...

Huge loss for the sport....:sad:

But the biggest loser was Bill Simpson... Who literally got thrown under the bus and crapped on...... Bill has done more then anyone to protect drivers over the years and never got a bit of credit for that.....

He told NASCAR to shove it up their ass... Sold Simpson racing products, started IMPACT racing and made millions all over again..
 
N801BH said:
:sad:Who literally got thrown under the bus and crapped on..
Click to expand...


"Literally"??
They did that to a guy?
That's horrible.

"Literally" threw a man under a bus and then went to the bathroom on him?

That's assault any way you slice it.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
"Literally"??
They did that to a guy?
That's horrible.

"Literally" threw a man under a bus and then went to the bathroom on him?

That's assault any way you slice it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he probably meant "virtually" or "figuratively."
 
tuwood said:
I think that there's some sort of psychological difference when it comes to pilots making mistakes and living with BRS versus pilots who make dumb mistakes and just die.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think that's because a few here believe that it's a justified or expected penalty for making a dumb mistake. Darwin and all. But I don't think someone should get the death penalty for being dumb, although it often happens. And that doesn't even address what I think about the passengers also getting the death penalty.
 
TRocket said:
modern technology can be a great asset, yet we can't (and are fools if we do) let technology be something we constantly rely on.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but that strikes me as just...weird.

Flying is a very technical pursuit. We rely on complex engines to keep providing power, fuel systems to keep providing adequate fuel, control systems to keep moving surfaces correctly, GPS to help us figure out where to go, and autopilots to get us there. We rely on radios to communicate, and transponders talking to ATC to maintain separation and report position.

Every time you get in an airplane, you are 100% reliant on technology for every moment of your survival. To single out ONE device and say "Aha, that's the one we shouldn't rely on!" is just bizarre, IMO.

:dunno:
 
So the definition of literally is literally no longer literal? Interesting.
 
The PRIME definition (at least int the OED) is the correct one:
I. In a literal manner or sense.
a. In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc.
b. Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense, usu. to add emphasis.
​

It's only because of stupid people that it has come to obtain the colloquial use:

c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.​

Alas, "virtually" is another one people don't understand.
 
flyingron said:
The PRIME definition (at least int the OED) is the correct one:
I. In a literal manner or sense.
a. In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc.
b. Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense, usu. to add emphasis.
​

It's only because of stupid people that it has come to obtain the colloquial use:

c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.​

Alas, "virtually" is another one people don't understand.
Click to expand...

My head is literally exploding trying to understand this. :wink2:
 
Bottom line


Bill Simpson created a world class business that saved thousands of lives over the years with HIGH quality products,,, Helmets, neck collars, seat belts , restraints, fireproof drivers suits, parachutes for dragsters, etc etc etc etc....



Dale would NOT wear a full face helmet,, or a HANS device... And he was killed.....
NASCAR lost its biggest star and instead of admitting they did NOT enforce a proper safety policy..They " suggested" the sewing , stitching, thread material in Bill Simpsons seat harness was inferior....

Bill knew better and is/ was 100% confident in the quality of his products and in " less then polite" terms told NASCAR to fuk off....

He sold Simpson safety products.. Started Impact racing products, made millions more.... and now he is doing helmet safety work for football and baseball sports... AND saving even more lives...

And to keep this thread in line with aviation.... He flies his own Citation,, and has for years..

Rant off.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top