Quote:
I would have definitely used the chute
I would certainly have not!
That said, it's all a bit of a gamble. I'd prefer to back my own ability to get the plane down safely on the water.
Not doubting your ability to get the aircraft to the water in one piece, and despite the fact this accident still resulted in an inverted situation, I still think using the chute to reduce forward momentum prior to a ditching (with fixed gear anyway) was the safest course of action. Not using it would have probably guaranteed the inversion.
I'm sure pilots who navigated using four course radio range were initially sceptical of pilots not having to be trained on its use once VORs and NDBs came on the scene. Todays pilot's will probably look on glass and say that tomorrow's pilots have no idea what a "proper" scanning technique on steam instruments was about.
Just because a new technology makes things easier doesn't mean it should be ignored. I'm not saying that the recovery techniques for aircraft without this equipment shouldn't be taught (in fact as I already posted they are still a part of the emerg procs) and I do agree there will be a tendancy to resort to the easiest solution (pop the chute) but just because not everyone has access to this technology doesn't mean no-one should have it. You may refer to it as the new doctor killer, but I think this technology will result in exactly the opposite. It's up to initial training and flight reviews to make sure that retired medical professionals (gross generalisation, don't take offence) don't put themselves in a position to require the BRS in the first place.
SUPERIOR PILOTS SHOULD USE THEIR SUPERIOR JUDGEMENT TO AVOID HAVING TO EXERCISE THEIR SUPERIOR SKILLS.
No disrespect intended, but the SBK and MMB midairs
may have turned out differently with a BRS. That kind of situation is what prompted its initial inclusion for the SR's.