More (or mandatory) parachutes will save lives....too many fatalities

denverpilot said:
And I've said it before and my wife knows too, if anyone uses that retarded phrase, "He died doing what he loved," I'm going to resurrect myself and strangle them personally.

No. I died doing something stupid that I shouldn't have been doing. Not what I loved. I loved doing it right. Not wrong.
Click to expand...

That has always been my thoughts on the subject as well. I hate useless platitudes and clichés like that.
 
FlySince9 said:
I've heard you tout the 2 "no paint scratched" engine failures... a couple of times on here...Just curious... Seems above average considering I only know of one person in 30 years that had even a partial failure... My go-to instructor I use for biennials and refreshers has over 8,000 hours without even a single partial failure... Just wondering what the circumstances were for your two failures... Not being critical, just honestly, curious...
Click to expand...
I've averaged one engine shutdown for every ~1200 hours. ~half of those were precautionary shutdowns.
 
Re: More parachutes will save lives....too many fatalities

When shopping for our first plane the $15,000 repack for the chute was one big reason we went with older 182 over the Cirrus. That is not a trivial cost for routine maintenance for something that seems to be best for total failure. Lose a wing you want that chute. Lose an engine and all trees, again chute might be best. Lose engine and roads and fields everywhere, land the plane yourself. Too close to ground, that chute will not help. So pro and con and for us the cost was too high for the few less than likely scenarios our family would be involved in. Midwest flying with a solid 182 that gets no deferred maintenance. I would rather spend that extra money in the plane on stuff I use every flight and not on the what if.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Many attempts to improve safety are actually counterproductive. In my opinion, if you have 10s of thousands of dollars to spare (note that beyond the original price the BRS must be inspected annually and replaced/repacked every 10 years for a hefty fee), you'd be much better off paying for training, currency and better maintenance. If you go through the NTSB accident reports, you'll find the vast majority of accidents are caused by pilot stupidity, recklessness, negligence, poor judgment and other very preventable things, both before and during the flight. If you eliminate those causes from your own flying, aviation becomes extremely safe, to the point that odds are extremely good you'll die elsewhere.
 
James331 said:
Mandatory :lol:

My life, my risks, my freedom of choice bud, so mandatory is off the table.

I've had two full engine failures, no chute, just flew the plane on down, didn't even scratch the paint.

If you want a consensus on safety we had a poll, Cessna 185 on tundras, or a SR22 with BRS, most folks voted for the 185 in a engine out.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86346


You got to ask yourself, are you more of a pilot or a pax when the chit hits the fan :dunno:
Click to expand...

That again? How many hours do you have in a 185 equipped with tundra tires?
 
RotorDude said:
Many attempts to improve safety are actually counterproductive. In my opinion, if you have 10s of thousands of dollars to spare (note that beyond the original price the BRS must be inspected annually and replaced/repacked every 10 years for a hefty fee), you'd be much better off paying for training, currency and better maintenance. If you go through the NTSB accident reports, you'll find the vast majority of accidents are caused by pilot stupidity, recklessness, negligence, poor judgment and other very preventable things, both before and during the flight. If you eliminate those causes from your own flying, aviation becomes extremely safe, to the point that odds are extremely good you'll die elsewhere.
Click to expand...
This.
 
I agree with Ron that "training" may be a better focal point than just adding another piece of equipment.

My original instructor was never hesitant to 'pull the plug' at any time and say, "You lost your engine. What do you do?" Seriously, we could be doing anything! My reactions became instinctive.

When "the fan quit" one day, as I entered downwind, I did what I needed to do... with no problems.

Even now, when I go out to practice, Roger's "You lost your engine. What do you do?" challenge is always part of the scenario. I think that even if I had a BRS, my first reaction would still be to fly the airplane.

 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Machismo thread :D
Engine out on a moonless night in desolate area and nobody is going to be wishing for larger tires.
Click to expand...

But if they were large enough.....

GiantTire.jpg


or even
giantx-wide-community.jpg
 
JHW said:
Yes, you do, or you wouldn't have written it. Things like this are always emotional knee-jerk reactions. The thing that would really limit airplane accidents is mandatory scrapping of all airplanes. Think of the children.
Click to expand...

Well, "banning all planes" is quite the nice retort. Not even remotely close to what I am saying. It's a nice red herring though.

I originally put "mandatory" in the title just to get more views and more discussion on the topic. A little inflammatory no doubt but it was really just to get more people riled up and a lively discussion going. What I didn't anticipate was 90% of the comments to be solely about the word mandatory, which takes the discussion in a different direction than I wanted. I made my bed and will lie in it for this thread. But if it was put to a vote I absolutely would not vote for mandatory parachutes.

Making mandatory chutes is way too cost prohibitive and can affect some people too much with weight limits etc. I just want to talk about the safety aspects of the parachute.
 
TexDeuce said:
Well, "banning all planes" is quite the nice retort. Not even remotely close to what I am saying. It's a nice red herring though.

I originally put "mandatory" in the title just to get more views and more discussion on the topic. A little inflammatory no doubt but it was really just to get more people riled up and a lively discussion going. What I didn't anticipate was 90% of the comments to be solely about the word mandatory, which takes the discussion in a different direction than I wanted.
Click to expand...

So you went trolling and now you don't like the catch. So sorry. Maybe you shouldn't be trolling? Maybe you should troll other waters? One thing is certain, you're an early candidate for the Ignore list.
 
Re: More parachutes will save lives....too many fatalities

Fearless Tower said:
While I am not opposed to making aircraft chutes more accessible to the masses, something you need to keep in mind as you ponder this panacea:

Many of these aforementioned landing accidents would not be helped (perhaps even made worse) by a ballistic chute. Unless we are talking about ejection seats, you need sufficient altitude to safely utilize the chute. Engine failure on takeoff, botched landings and the classic base to final stall spin typically happen below that minimum altitude. There was a recent Cirrus fatal accident with chute pull below that altitude - the low altitude deployment of the chute likely resulted in the deaths of the front seat occupants that may have otherwise survived had they not pulled it. We'll never know - but we do know the chute pull in that case was not survivable.

BRS is extremely expensive addition to most aircraft and will not solve all problems.
Click to expand...

Good post. There are also chute pulls below the minimum recommended that worked out ok. There was one guy who pulled the chute at extremely low altitude who said it slowed him down before he slammed right into a tree and he credits the chute with saving his life. The chutes have worked 300-500 AGL and there are plenty of people dying at or above those levels. What about the CFI where the rudder was suspected to stick and he couldn't recover out of the spin? Parachute can help with:


• Single-engine night operations
• Pilot incapacitation
• Stall/spin on approach
• Structural failure
• Loss of control/icing (component failure, icing induced or pilot error)
• Engine out over hostile terrain
Structural failure
• Mid air collision

If we are going strictly by numbers and playing percentages, the math says you are certainly more likely to live pulling the parachute then attempting an emergency landing. Obviously there are many different scenarios where one would be the better option than the other.

How much is your life or your family's life worth? Is it worth a parachute on your plane? Maybe, maybe not. Chances are you will be ok, but I bet many of those guys going down with their family wished they had a parachute at the time.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
So you went trolling and now you don't like the catch. So sorry. Maybe you shouldn't be trolling? Maybe you should troll other waters? One thing is certain, you're an early candidate for the Ignore list.
Click to expand...

Lol. Are you 12 years old? Put me on ignore if you don't like the thread. I'm not trolling. What have I said that is so off base or crazy? I have not been harsh to anyone and have not said anything off base. Not everyone will agree with me but that is far different from trolling and actively saying malicious things.

If this discussion makes you feel uncomfortable you are welcome to view another thread, there are plenty of good ones out there.
 
Last edited:
I think Clark just pulled the chute on this thread :)
 
I can imagine lots of scenarios where I'd like to have a chute but the cost-benefit ratio isn't favorable. That's what it comes down to. And like other equipment, the addition of a chute will likely lead to a pilot changing his limitations because he has the oh sh-t handle to pull if he goes too far. I wonder how that might actually increase flight into terrain accidents? In truth those accidents make up a significant portion of fatality accidents and parachutes would likely have no effect.
 
Re: More parachutes will save lives....too many fatalities

TexDeuce said:
I understand this might be controversial but I feel compelled to say my piece. I read the NTSB reports constantly, along with any plane crashes that register on google. Seems like pilots are dying pretty much daily. Lately I have seen quite a few plane crashes where the pilot just completely fails to land the plane safely for whatever reason. Looking over the many accidents, I am certain pulling a parachute quickly would have resulted in a much better outcome for a lot of these pilots.
Click to expand...

If pilots were learning how to fly properly themselves, (able to recognize and prevent a stall, etc), instead of trying to FORCE unnecessary requirements and cost on others, they might not be dying. You worry about you, I'll worry about me. BTW, seems like drivers and drug abusers are dying pretty much every day. Go bother them.
 
TexDeuce said:
Well, "banning all planes" is quite the nice retort. Not even remotely close to what I am saying. It's a nice red herring though.

I originally put "mandatory" in the title just to get more views and more discussion on the topic. A little inflammatory no doubt but it was really just to get more people riled up and a lively discussion going. What I didn't anticipate was 90% of the comments to be solely about the word mandatory, which takes the discussion in a different direction than I wanted. I made my bed and will lie in it for this thread. But if it was put to a vote I absolutely would not vote for mandatory parachutes.

Making mandatory chutes is way too cost prohibitive and can affect some people too much with weight limits etc. I just want to talk about the safety aspects of the parachute.
Click to expand...

TexDeuce said:
Lol. Are you 12 years old? Put me on ignore if you don't like the thread. I'm not trolling. What have I said that is so off base or crazy? I have not been harsh to anyone and have not said anything off base. Not everyone will agree with me but that is far different from trolling and actively saying malicious things.

If this discussion makes you feel uncomfortable you are welcome to view another thread, there are plenty of good ones out there.
Click to expand...

So you say that you wanted to get people riled up while fishing for more views. Pretty much a troll in my book. HTH and HAND
 
I think a troll is someone who is saying ridiculous things and intentionally trying to make a lot of people angry. I am not doing either. I just wanted a lively, simple discussion over the merits of having a parachute. Instead of that it seems people are getting really stuck on one word, mandatory. That is not really the point of my thread.

You can call it a troll if it makes you feel better or you want to discredit what I am saying. I'd rather we just have a nice discussion on the merits of a parachute (or drawbacks). The fact is every single one of my posts have had a salient point or opinion and have been nothing but cordial. What have you added to the discussion other than crying about the ignore list and saying troll?
 
Last edited:
How many average single engine piston personal airplanes have any of the following:

Cabin Handheld Fire Extinguisher
Shoulder Harness (many old ones don't)
Air Bag Seat Belts
Engine Fire Detector
Engine Fire Extinguisher
Life Vests
Life Raft
406 ELT
Survival Kit
First Aid Kit
Automated External Defibulator
Parachute


A lot of them don't even have a shoulder harness or a fire extinguisher...
 
TexDeuce said:
I think a troll is someone who is saying ridiculous things and intentionally trying to make a lot of people angry. I am not doing either. I just want a simple discussion over the merits of having a parachute.
Click to expand...

No, you wanted to get people riled up by using the word "mandatory". You could have left it out. There is a lot of difference between "more" and "mandatory".

TexDeuce said:
I originally put "mandatory" in the title just to get more views and more discussion on the topic. A little inflammatory no doubt but it was really just to get more people riled up and a lively discussion going.
Click to expand...
 
Re: More parachutes will save lives....too many fatalities

TexDeuce said:
Good post. There are also chute pulls below the minimum recommended that worked out ok. There was one guy who pulled the chute at extremely low altitude who said it slowed him down before he slammed right into a tree and he credits the chute with saving his life. The chutes have worked 300-500 AGL
Click to expand...
Go on youtube and watch the video of the Cirrus that deployed its chute enroute to Hawaii.

I do not believe anyone has truly successfully deployed a chute as low as 300' AGL.
 
steingar said:
Anyone can easily have a parachute. They're inexpensive to purchase and aren't even that much to repack. I doubt I'd have reason to bail out of a perfectly good airplane, but the OP may differ.
Click to expand...
An airplane with a dead engine is no longer a "perfectly good airplane" but...
still a perfectly good "glider". I'll take my chances without a chute.
 
Ndigo, yes mandatory was in the title. That doesn't change the fact that none of my posts nor the original post even had mandatory in them. I have said countless times we can move away from mandatory and discuss the actual content of my posts, and not the thread title. The fact not one of my posts nor the original post had mandatory in them should cut the troll talk. Clearly some guys are uncomfortable talking about the subject and screaming troll makes them feel a little better about the subject.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix said:
C'mon mandatory helmets and nomex suits first.:D Secondhand bailout rigs go for a grand, new ones twice that. Wear your parachute on your back like a real man. Charles Lindbergh style(he jumped two or three times from peril.) Better be reasonably fit to get out the door in anger. Course if living long is your goal you better be reasonably fit. Never mind plane crashes your earthbound lifestyle choices are more likely to kill the crap out of you.:lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe this will sound funny, but I actually have a reserve backpack chute, and I'm seriously considering wearing it in my plane. It would be the height of hilarity for me to crash and die with a perfectly good parachute sitting under my credenza at home.
 
TexDeuce said:
I think a troll is someone who is saying ridiculous things and intentionally trying to make a lot of people angry. I am not doing either. I just wanted a lively, simple discussion over the merits of having a parachute. Instead of that it seems people are getting really stuck on one word, mandatory. That is not really the point of my thread.

You can call it a troll if it makes you feel better or you want to discredit what I am saying. I'd rather we just have a nice discussion on the merits of a parachute (or drawbacks). The fact is every single one of my posts have had a salient point or opinion and have been nothing but cordial. What have you added to the discussion other than crying about the ignore list and saying troll?
Click to expand...

TexDeuce said:
Ndigo, yes mandatory was in the title. That doesn't change the fact that none of my posts nor the original post even had mandatory in them. I have said countless times we can move away from mandatory and discuss the actual content of my posts, and not the thread title. A troll would be continuing to push the mandatory aspect and trying to make everyone mad. I have asked we just drop it, and discuss my actual original post which had nothing about mandatory in it.
Click to expand...

This very topic has been discussed at least 30 times in the last decade on this board (and others) with similar emotions, debate, and outcome.

What are you bringing to the topic this time that is new or enlightening, that will not produce the same output?
 
Fearless Tower said:
That you paid that much for a flight helmet....
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. I've never flown a Cub without it. Never will. Perhaps you should put more energy into sharing your own experiences and less into chipping at those of others?
 
ElPaso, there are countless topics discussed over and over again. Because we have talked about something a few times means it should never be brought up again? That would eliminate a ton of threads even on this very forum. How many people have been here 10 years and actively participated in those threads?
 
TexDeuce said:
I think a troll is someone who is saying ridiculous things and intentionally trying to make a lot of people angry. I am not doing either. I just wanted a lively, simple discussion over the merits of having a parachute. Instead of that it seems people are getting really stuck on one word, mandatory. That is not really the point of my thread.
Click to expand...

I don't think this thread qualifies as trolling, but you were being disingenuous with the 'mandatory' statement which you've retracted since then, and I take you at your word on that. No harm, small foul - meh, I can get over it.

One thing I see that most people here don't grasp, or won't admit is the parachute method indicates failure. All the before hand methods like flying during the day, having full tanks, getting proper and timely training are all good traits to follow. Having said that, some of us by no fault of our own(see where I'm going here?) may find ourselves in need of the ultimate get out of jail free card. A morning after pill for the times that doing everything right still leads to potential tragedy.

For that particular time, I would love to have the option of the chute. If it were available on a 185, with tundra tires, and 4 point harnesses, I would still like the option of a chute. There's a quote from the book The Right Stuff that I can't recall perfectly but it went something like; 'I tried A, I tried B, I tried C, and there wasn't time for D or E, so I left the plane'. The aviation equivalent of the 'easy' button. But don't forget that pulling the handle is admitting failure and defeat, not something that most pilots are willing to do.

So, use your own scenario, make up your own qualifiers, and decide when, where, and if you would LIKE to have a chute option. I know that over the western US, flying along at 10k feet I'm not inclined to need or want one. Flying over La Veta pass, with only 2500' AGL, and millions of pine trees below me, with a stiff wind in my face, well - yessir, I sure would like a chute, thankyouverymuch.

YMMV
 
Stewartb said:
Whatever you say. I've never flown a Cub without it. Never will. Perhaps you should put more energy into sharing your own experiences and less into chipping at those of others?
Click to expand...
Okay wise-guy.

Since you asked - I have my own helmet and paid less than $1k for it. I'm honestly trying to figure out how/why you would pay that much?
 
I recently bought my Dakota which of course has no parachute. It is nicely outfitted and for the same price, I could have bought an SR20 with a parachute. I think I made the right choice, but like a poster above said, I too would pay $6K to add a chute to mine... Except thee isn't a way to do that.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
This very topic has been discussed at least 30 times in the last decade on this board (and others) with similar emotions, debate, and outcome.

What are you bringing to the topic this time that is new or enlightening, that will not produce the same output?
Click to expand...

why so harsh on the guy for starting a topic about aviation, in an aviation board, that's been discussed before?

Surely new members have joined since the last thread. Surely old members have missed the previous thread on this subject. Surely times, emotions, technology, regulations, experiences changed since the last thread.

If I had a nickel for every 'what plane for me', I could retire tomorrow. So what? Each person is different, and each brings a slightly different perspective(mandatory) to the table.

Take a pill, drink decaf, get laid, have an enema, but jeezalou, if folks don't like a thread, put it on ignore and be done with it. :rolleyes:
 
TexDeuce said:
ElPaso, there are countless topics discussed over and over again. Because we have talked about something a few times means it should never be brought up again? That would eliminate a ton of threads even on this very forum.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you shouldn't bring it up again ... but if you aren't adding anything new to the situation besides "let's discuss", with an inflammatory (yes, retracted) "mandatory", don't be surprised that this thread isn't taking a different path than it did every other time.

TexDeuce said:
How many people have been here 10 years and actively participated in those threads?
Click to expand...

... if it isn't obvious, most of the folks responding to this thread have a decade of honing their point of view on this debate.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Okay wise-guy.

Since you asked - I have my own helmet and paid less than $1k for it. I'm honestly trying to figure out how/why you would pay that much?
Click to expand...


Me the wise guy? If you wanted to know you should have asked.

Gallet LH-050 with built-in ANR and Oregon Aero zeta liner. Merit Apparel was my supplier if you feel like shopping. Why that helmet? It's the best and lightest helmet I could find. My buddies that use Gentex all prefer mine. DC helmets aren't even close (I have one of those, too). I don't fly budget airplanes, subscribe to low priced maintenance, or skimp on my preferred equipment. But this thread is about parachutes. If I could find a practical way to add a parachute to my tundra tire-equipped Skywagon that I've flown for 20 years? I would. Would I have used it in my 20 years in that plane? No, but as I get older I recognize my mortality easier than I did when I was younger.
 
Last edited:
TexDeuce said:
Clearly some guys are uncomfortable talking about the subject and screaming troll makes them feel a little better about the subject.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone posting here is uncomfortable about their opinion on the subject or they wouldn't post. They are just calling you out for your attempt at clickbait. You now say you didn't really mean it. OK, but a little late.
 
docmirror said:
why so harsh on the guy for starting a topic about aviation, in an aviation board, that's been discussed before?

Surely new members have joined since the last thread. Surely old members have missed the previous thread on this subject. Surely times, emotions, technology, regulations, experiences changed since the last thread.

If I had a nickel for every 'what plane for me', I could retire tomorrow. So what? Each person is different, and each brings a slightly different perspective(mandatory) to the table.

Take a pill, drink decaf, get laid, have an enema, but jeezalou, if folks don't like a thread, put it on ignore and be done with it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Enema??? Ouch, doc. I really don't want to go there... :eek:

I subscribe to the "each to his own" mantra, and did not plan to respond to this thread until the OP admitted that he threw the mandatory into the title to be "inflammatory" and "get more people riled up".

Sorry, but he got exactly what he wanted on this one.

TexDeuce said:
I originally put "mandatory" in the title just to get more views and more discussion on the topic. A little inflammatory no doubt but it was really just to get more people riled up and a lively discussion going.
Click to expand...
 
ElPaso you are right, I did get what I wanted. Which was a lively thread with discussions on the merits or drawbacks of a parachute. I wish there was less focus on one word in the title but we can't always have our cake and eat it to, can we? I do appreciate those who have voiced their opinion on the topic, no matter what side of the fence you are on. And for the record, I fly planes with no parachute and have no qualms about it. Don't even think twice about it. But given the choice I absolutely do prefer the parachute as an option, especially during night flight or over terrain not suitable for off field landing.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Me the wise guy? If you wanted to know you should have asked.

Gallet LH-050 with built-in ANR and Oregon Aero zeta liner. Merit Apparel was my supplier if you feel like shopping. Why that helmet? It's the best and lightest helmet I could find. My buddies that use Gentex all prefer mine. DC helmets aren't even close (I have one of those, too). I don't fly budget airplanes, subscribe to low priced maintenance, or skimp on my preferred equipment. But this thread is about parachutes. If I could find a practical way to add a parachute to my tundra tire-equipped Skywagon that I've flown for 20 years? I would. Would I have used it in my 20 years in that plane? No, but as I get older I recognize my mortality easier than I did when I was younger.
Click to expand...
I'll have to take your word for it. Mine is Gentex with a new Gibson and Barnes internals and I have no complaints about the weight, fit or noise level. I guess I have a hard time seeing what more I'd get for an extra grand.

I don't fly budget airplanes either.
 
docmirror said:
Whelp, here's more of my 2 cents worth.

I spent about $600 and equipped my plane with four point restraints in front. They are rated to 19Gs for something like .191 seconds which is the typical impact pulse strain of the human body during an abrupt decel. I consider this the be a super value proposition. If I could get a chute retrofitted for even 10 times that, I'd seriously consider it. Heck, I'll say right now I would spend ~$6k for a chute for my plane, no question.

Sadly - there is no retro chute offered at any price. And, if someone like me as an engineer were to start designing a retrofit option for my plane, by the time I was done with certification the cost would be 5X the value of the hull. So, notwithstanding the value I place on my life, and the life of my pax, even at $150,000 I can't afford it, and neither can the rest of GA.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. would love a BRS, but nothing with any decent useful load can have one.

Would love to have BRS on a six (a plane that could actually tolerate the additional 80 lbs of weight) versus a 172 that it seems like two guys my size and fuel takes you almost to gross already (but a BRS IS available for them)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top