The bottom line is that this debate is never going to be resolved one way or the other. Too many “old school” pilots and instructors who are unwilling to embrace the advantages of new technology, methods, and practices on the one hand, too many blindly optimistic pilots and instructors who uncritically embrace and tout the enhanced safety aspects of the newest and largely unproven aviation widjets on the other hand.

However, _I_ want the ‘chute. I would love it if the flight school I work with would have all their Cessnas retrofitted with them. In my almost 9 years of flying my Cirrus, I have been in three situations where I was mere seconds from needing the parachute. Had I not had the luxury of time to think of an alternate plan in each case, I would have pulled the ‘chute and been happy. Had I been in one of our trainer planes, having the time to think would have been the ONLY option for a safe outcome.

The first case: Left aileron pulley separated from the autopilot servo shaft while on approach in low IMC. After a few seconds of thinking I had lost all roll command control and actually starting the deployment sequence, I realized I could still control the plane although the controls were extremely sloppy, so I declared an emergency but was able to land safely.

The second case: Unforecast icing during an IMC approach descent. The airframe accumulated 3/4 of an inch of rime ice in less than 2 minutes (Aeronewsnet used after-landing pictures of my plane for their article on icing last year) The airplane stalled at approx 100 KIAS with no buffet and no other advance warning. My up-to-then-strictly-theoretical training on how to deal with tail plane stalls and my own instructors’ warnings to land with no flaps and the power in in such situations kept me from deploying the chute.

The third and most recent case: Day VFR ;4500ft MSL; BANG, the engine starts losing oil pressure. Make precautionary landing. Find crankcase cracked fore-to-aft along the upper right cylinder deck, almost 18 inches long (from just aft the prop shaft seal to past the data plate). Had I not made the precautionary landing, the engine likely would have failed catastrophically in flight. As I’m waiting the several weeks for a new engine to be installed, I discuss with my IFR students what they would do if that scenario occurred in IMC and thus an immediate return to the airport was not an option. The only “win” scenario we could come up with was a ‘chute pull.

The “old schoolers” argue that I obviously have the “right stuff” because I used my “superior knowledge and skills” to avoid needing the ‘chute in all three cases. The “new tech” pilots argue that I was an idiot in all three cases for waiting to pull the ‘chute because I had no way of knowing at the time that the situation was salvageable. Both groups are wrong. In each case I just decided to try something else FIRST, BEFORE pulling the parachute, and that decision turned out to be an O.K. one. MY opinion is that I’m glad the ‘chute was there as a “plan B” — in each case I flew the plane all the way to a safe landing with my left hand but my right hand was firmly wrapped around the big red handle just in case my decision to fly instead of pull turned out to be the wrong choice.

The parachutes will continue to save lives, but only if the pilots decide to use them. Some pilots will use the presence of the parachute to justify a risky decision to fly or continue a flight. Some pilots flying planes with parachutes won’t use it even if the situation plainly calls for it for fear of being called a wimp by the hangar rats. Some pilots will pull the ‘chute even though another acceptable resolution to an in-light hazard exists. Unless it is you in the seat staring at the instruments, the ground going ’round and ’round, and the big red parachute handle (or lack thereof) , DO NOT second-guess the pilot’s decisions, lest we talk bad about you later too!

Regardless of your opinion, airplanes are THINGS – easily replaced. pilots, crews, and pax are PEOPLE – not replaceable at all. I opt for replacing the plane and so I am glad I and others have a parachute available. I only wish that more of the planes I fly on a daily basis had them.

It reminds me of an accident in 2003/2004 while training in the PanAm flight school in Phoenix: A student in an Archer on a solo flight (not sure if he was PP or working on another rating or certificate) had the yoke come off the stick. He panicked but then thought he could safely land the plane using rudder, elevator trim and power. Remarkably, he landed the plane without injury but one wing was destroyed. Not once, during his ordeal did he think about climbing into the right side and using that yoke which was in perfect condition!

He recalled having one misison, and that was to get the plane on the ground (which he did). Everyone, after the fact, laughed and ridiculed him and Monday-morning-quarterbacked him but none of those folks were in his shoes – so it was not fair.

Different pilots will react differently to the same situation – some would have climbed in the right seat, some would have done what this young man did, and some would have died.

While you can’t mimic real-time crisis scenarios during training, the scenario-based training is still the best route and instructors and examiners must have a keen eye to seeing how someone might react certain scenarios.

I am sure the Cirrus pilot is not happy with what happened to his plane and is having second thoughts, but he is alive to tell about it- and ask any of his family and friends and I’m sure they’ll prefer that over the alternative tragic outcome.

If an airplane or helicopter is to have a ‘chute, it should be because the pilot/owner who has to pay for said aircraft and live with its limitations, wants to have it on his or her own plane.

IMHO, aircraft should NOT be required to have parachutes because some neurotic intellectual (i.e. Ralph Nader), who most likely doesn’t like general aviation anyway, wants other people’s planes to have said device.

We have seen how the cars we drive are being burdened with more and more safety gadgets primarily to gratify the emotional and intellectual needs of the Ralph Naders of the world, for more and more safety devices on other people’s cars.

I would like to point out that if the FAA were to mandate parachutes regardless of whether a specific owner/pilot likes it or not, then what next? As a reader of Flying magazine for years, I recall reading in their accident column (On the Record) about a young girl who was fatally struck down by the whirling propeller on her father’s plane. Should we then require all prop-driven planes to have wire cages (like on a fan one might use in one’s home or office to keep cool in hot weather) around their propellers, regardless of the aerodynamic penalty, to gratify the emotional and ego needs of intellectuals for such things on other people’s planes?

Some owner/pilots may want parachutes on their planes, some not. So the verdict should be: BRS systems? Yes — If a specific owner/pilot wants one!

Removing safety features is a rediculous approach to teaching responsibility and thinly veiled machismo. The same argument would justify removing seatbelts and airbags from cars so drivers would drive wiser, removing life vests from boats so sailors would sail safer, removing railings from observation decks so people wouldn’t get so close to the edge, removing safety keys from table saws so carpenters are more careful with the power switch, or better yet, raising wing stall speeds so pilots better learn to fear stalls.

If there are limitations on the safe application of a particular safety device, then pilot training should indoctrinate the particulars and I welcome that discussion. But disparaging the device altogether is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and serves no one in GA other than those wanting to boast of their skill in surviving a dangerous avocation. The latter should feel free to prove themselves by flying fast unstable aircraft in fog with minimal instrumentation … without me.