Peter
I take your point about the occupants being isolated from the G forces when the aircraft lands by chute as the structure below the seats deforms to absorb the energy in a high rate of decent.
So it follows that if the energy absorbing structure below an occupied seat is intact and undamaged the forces on the whole aircraft are likely to have been quite low, undamaged seat support structure is part of the picture that an inspection after a chute landing has to take into account.
I think for the benefit of some on this forum who think that people just stick these aircraft back together in a barn with a bit of glue I should add that any repair of this scale would have to be done by a EASA 145 company ( that will exclude 85% of the GA maintenance company's) and that all repairs have to be some in accordance with detailed instructions from a properly authorized design organization ( that is almost always the aircraft manufacturer).
The repair of composite aircraft is something that is not well understood by the GA metal bashes who in the past have written off aircraft with light damage that could have been fixed in a few weeks.
It is all well and good for people to express opinions on these forums but in all but a few cases the opinion holder has only half the picture that was delivered to him buy a bloke in a bar who says he is an expert. The peope who fix these aircraft are properly qualified and have all the facts at there disposal along with their own experience of fixing aircraft and that of the aircraft manufacturer.
It is the cost of composite aircraft being written off that is forcing the cost of insuring such aircraft up to the point that silly requirements are being asked of pilots just to fly a pretty basic SEP.
Last edited by A and C; 13th Jul 2012 at 10:39.