Jock
In the past I've disagreed with a lot of things you've said about CAPS, but here you are dead right!
Shortstripper
1. I didn't take your points out of context, I simply addressed every point in your post separately and in the order in which you made them.
If you feel any of the evidence I presented or arguments I made are wrong, or if the context in which I should have read them is different, please refute what I said specifically with evidence of your own.
2. I did read your posts in their entirety before responding to them and have since done so again before writing this.
It is striking that this is the first time you have referred to any objective evidence in the form of the Wikipedia article that you quote, and which you acknowledge supports the main argument I have been making all along about the need for training and participation in safety initiatives and demonstrates the impact that those initiatives have had.
I invite you to go back over my posts and count the number of times I have said that, and I am glad to see that BPF has now been able to make the point successfully.
3. If you re-read your post of 1st May, perhaps you will understand why it would cause me to reply as I did.
In it, you make a number of assertions and ask questions that imply "facts" that are simply not true, or ask perjorative questions based on unsupportable premises.
I will just quote three examples here. I acknowledge that they are taken individually but do believe that they reflect accurately the line and attitude expressed in your posts.
I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?
And
Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used.
It's a parachute, and obviously parachutes need height in order to work. If you jump out of a plane wearing a parachute and you aren't high enough you will hit the ground and die. It's the same with CAPS.
Your assertion that Cirrus “wash their hands” is both demonstrably untrue and, if I was the CEO of Cirrus, I would find it pretty offensive. I have made my fair share of criticisms of things that Cirrus has done in the past but, to my knowledge, they have never done anything as cynical as that.
That is why I referred you to the post I made before yours was written, and in which I both set out the demonstrated deployment parameters and made the point that real saves had actually been made well outside those parameters. I am sorry if you found that to be patronising.
However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately
In your last post, you acknowledge the positive effect that the CPPP and transition training programs have had and you are right to do so.
Use of CAPS is an integral part of those programs and the number of successful CAPS saves has increased whilst the number of fatal accidents has decreased. That's a matter of documented fact not opinion. From the article you yourself quoted:
By 2014 the accident rate had been dramatically reduced, with a 2013 fatal rate of 1.01 per 100,000 flight hours. This was attributed to better training, particularly in when to deploy the ballistic parachute system.”
Yet you criticise us for saying that the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged.
Your assertion that CAPS is being used inappropriately is backed by no evidence. In response I said that I was aware of one instance when it might have been unnecessary for the pilot to pull although, to be fair to him, I wasn't there so can't really criticise him and, in any case, would far rather see him alive having pulled than dead if he screwed up the recovery.
Once again, I invite you to list the “inappropriate” pulls to which you refer: you have 43 successful saves to choose from and you presumably have knowledge of them to be able to describe them as “inappropriate”.
I might also point out that nobody has said “once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle”.
What we do say is that you should pull unless you have a nailed on landing on a proper runway and I know of at least one Cirrus pilot who has done such a landing.
Sadly, as I demonstrated in my earlier post, Manfred Stolle, a good and experienced pilot, died when he got it wrong trying to do that. He is not the only one to die in a Cirrus trying to stretch a glide or land off airport, and there are plenty of other examples as well such as the DA20 crash I quoted in another earlier post.
I acknowledge your undoubted skill in doing three dead stick landings into fields. I'd be interested to know what you were flying (and who does your maintenance!
). You are obviously a far better pilot than I am, and certainly a far bolder one, although to paraphrase Lady Bracknell: “to lose one engine may be deemed unfortunate, but to lose three......”
By the way: can you imagine the uproar on here if it became known that a single Cirrus pilot had had three engine failures?
I hope you never have another engine failure but, if you do, also hope that it will be as successful and that there is nothing nasty (stone, tree stump, wire fence, ditch ........) that you couldn't see from 400 ft waiting for you when you land.