Originally Posted by
thborchert
Here's what I can imagine with my feeble dead-ferret mind: If a pilot has an emergency dire enough to make him pull that chute, the likelihood he will be able to calmly steer some contraption in a sensible way is low.
Pilots are trained in forced-landing techniques for the 99% of the fleet that don't have BRS. Many of the BRS-less forced-landing attempts are pulled off with reasonable results. Many glider pilots manage an unpowered outlanding on a regular basis without killing themselves or destroying their aircraft. The evidence to support your claim just doesn't exist!
Originally Posted by
thborchert
Here's where I don't need any imagination, because these are the facts:
- the chute as it is works perfectly in all conceivable aspects of its operation.
- the reasons for chute pulls go far beyond engine failure.
- pilots are the overwhelmingly major cause of accidents. Thus, keeping pilots in control in case of an accident may be a bad idea. The success of the chute (and ejection seats in the military, I might add) certainly points in that direction.
It works perfectly in the same way a Fokker Dr.1 worked perfectly. I'm guessing Martin-Baker didn't need to move on from their first generation bang seat either...?
Seriously, the BRS works well, but it's pot-luck what you land on top of and what the end result might be. They're also heavy, or, put it another way, if you could increase the effective wing-loading by allowing controlled forward speed, they could be made lighter and as a result be made available and suitable for even more aircraft. Progress be damned, though!