You are way better at articulating with words then I am Zzz. What you wrote is very well put.
That said, I do believe that there are pilots who take emergency training for granted due to the CAPS system.

Good point Zane. I swear by helmets and shoulder harness, but I have never worn a parachute. I'm really not sure that I could.

I just finished "Hell Hawks!," about the 365th Fighter Group. They flew P-47s and were the first systematic effort of the Army Air Force to provide close air support to ground troops in the last year and half of WWII in Europe. The fatalities from chute problems far exceeded the fatalities from belly landing the P-47.

I agree that the parachute systems are fine safety devises for those who fly high. For those who fly low, no. I would expect that training and indoctrination on when to use or not use it would be wise. I would also hope that instructors caution against trying to get to a safe parachute altitude too quickly. Too many airplanes, even without parachute systems, are stalled or mushed into terrain in an unwise attempt to get to altitude too quickly. The desire to get to altitude quickly is not always a safe mind set.

Battson wrote:

Zzz wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:I often see this mentality regarding helmets-- that being that because a pilot chooses to wear a helmet that they will subconsciously (or consciously) take more chances and be less safe leading them to a scenario where they get to use their helmet.

You seen the studies into this? Same goes for seat-belts, and driving aggressively.
When people feel safer, they take more risks, it's a proven fact.

How then does a rational person simply hedge their bets against dying while still operating prudently, without falling victim to the allure of risky behavior in the presence of safety devices? I hesitate to use the condom analogy and cheating on one's wife, but I will if I have to...

Contact makes a good point that parachutes systems are useless for low level upsets and bad piloting. That's true. In those cases I think the rapid-deployment emulsion foam from Demolition Man is your only hope. Nevertheless, for the scenarios I mentioned in my second-to-last post, I think they have great value.

I experienced some engine roughness last summer to the extent that I thought it might be my first engine-out landing, but had I been parachute-equipped, I would not have even considered pulling. It wouldn't have done me an ounce of good at 50 ft AGL. Even at 2000 AGL, the options are so many around here that it would have been an easy decision to forego pulling and just land in a field. It's just another tool for a pilot, one that you'd have to evaluate parameters before using.

Fun topic. It gets very philosophical, because I doubt I'll ever actually have a chute in the airplane, short of D.B. Coopering.

Battson wrote:

Zzz wrote:I often see this mentality regarding helmets-- that being that because a pilot chooses to wear a helmet that they will subconsciously (or consciously) take more chances and be less safe leading them to a scenario where they get to use their helmet.

You seen the studies into this? Same goes for seat-belts, and driving aggressively.
When people feel safer, they take more risks, it's a proven fact.

Could you reference a source for that?
Do statistics actually show that people drive more aggressively because they have seat belts and airbags?
Are motorcyclists more apt to take risks because they are wearing helmets?

Am I a worse driver because I chose one sports car specifically over another sports car because of it's side airbags and traction control?

Do we ever look at an accident on the road and think, "he wouldn't have acted so stupidly if he didn't have airbags" ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I was intrigued by this concept a few months ago, and the above link is the best single source definition with examples. I've scoured around looking and reading additional pieces related to perceived risk levels, and have come to an opinion that I believe it to be true. One pushes forward to their own threshold of perceived risk.

The closest examples of my own I could use would be motorcycle track days, where new riders start of typically tentatively, and build up to a level of comfort. As they gain trust in their machine they increase to the threshold, and stop. 100 days later without help hey will still be riding at that threshold. But if they change bikes and find one much more comfortable, the lap time will instantly improve, even if it's a lower power or lower top end bike. Their perceived level of risk is less.
Another example would be barefoot waterskiing. I can do surface turns all day on shoe skis, but remove the skis and increase the speed a mere 4-5 mph and my brain can't accept the new risk level of bouncing my head off the water backwards.

In a similar realm, vertical wind tunnel businesses (indoor skydiving) like iFly seem to be thriving.

PB

Interesting. When asked about emergency procedures, Zoomie pilots always reach up like they were activating an ejection seat and say, "Game over!" They also get up really high really fast.

smoothwaterman wrote:The closest examples of my own I could use would be motorcycle track days

Helmets are part of the motorcycle culture, and few shy of a drunk BBQ performance ever ride without. When I rode, the helmet was just part of the compulsory gear and it didn't empower or embolden me in any way, although if I rode without one I felt naked.

Flying with a helmet, I forget I have it on and everything proceeds as usual. I would imagine flying with a [airframe] parachute would be the same. I took a basic aerobatics course once and was too focused on the flying to remember that I was wearing a parachute. THough I guess one could argue that flying acro does actually carry some additional risk.

But the mentality that opting to not use additional safety gear/measures will prevent me from needing it seems backwards.

Zzz wrote:But the mentality that opting to not use additional safety gear/measures will prevent me from needing it seems backwards.

I concur.

Never would I NOT install a safety feature that was feasible to do. Especially for the thought that safety equipment might make me more risky. That just doesn't make sense.

Better rip the seat belts out of our cars...

Zzz wrote:

smoothwaterman wrote:The closest examples of my own I could use would be motorcycle track days

Helmets are part of the motorcycle culture, and few shy of a drunk BBQ performance ever ride without. When I rode, the helmet was just part of the compulsory gear and it didn't empower or embolden me in any way, although if I rode without one I felt naked.

Flying with a helmet, I forget I have it on and everything proceeds as usual. I would imagine flying with a [airframe] parachute would be the same. I took a basic aerobatics course once and was too focused on the flying to remember that I was wearing a parachute. THough I guess one could argue that flying acro does actually carry some additional risk.

But the mentality that opting to not use additional safety gear/measures will prevent me from needing it seems backwards.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel that the perceived risk theory relates to removing safety gear at all. But as you stated that riding without a helmet makes you feel naked, think about driving a car now without wearing a seat belt. If you're old like me you grew up not wearin a seat belt, but now to drive without one makes me feel like nothing is holding me in the seat anymore. I can't drive as aggressively off road because I would be sliding all over he seat. But if I have a six point harness _and_ a full roll cage, you can believe that my aggressiveness, late braking, and longer pedal holds just went up a notch or two, because I _feel_ safer. This is the perceived risk theory.

Risk Compensation is an interesting theory but very difficult to objectively measure because risk acceptance is different for each individual. There is also the issue of not being aware of the risk and thus giving the appearance of accepting a higher level of risk.

Different typed of people: On a cliff, those who:
1. Wont walk up to the railing
2. Walk up to the railing but wont look down
3. Lean over the railing
4. Climb over and hold onto the railing
5. Wonders why the railing is even there

There is a subset of those groups that would radically change their behavior based on the perceived strength of the railing. Group #4 is most likely to break the rules and hope that technology will bail him out.

Do I drive faster on the beltway because my car has stability control and airbags? Nah, I drove just as fast (down hill) in my Volkswagen Rabbit. Do I drive that fast with my wife in the car? No. The risk is the same but the consequences are different (she'll kick my ass)

It's a good topic to discuss but the original post wasn't really about the Cirrus promoting risky behavior due to added safety devices. It was about a stupid pilot. And, as we all know; Stupid is as stupid does.

Not sure where I was going with this post but I do agree that some folks will behave worse if they think they have a safety net.

Bagarre,

Yes, off topic but interesting. When young man I was a rock climber. I was afraid of heights but wouldn't admit it even to myself. I didn't look down and I drove a lot of pitons (era before the modern equipment.) Kids now, using smear holds, put a lot of faith in the equipment.

I sprayed and FBOed out of Buffalo, Missouri a while. My mechanic said the legal age for a "Buffalo" to grow up was forty. Long before that age, I gave up rock climbing. It doesn't bother me a bit now to crawl up to the edge of Grand Canyon or Canyon de Chelley on my hands and knees to look over the edge. I don't care if the grandkids laugh.

Contact

contactflying wrote:Bagarre,

Yes, off topic but interesting. When young man I was a rock climber. I was afraid of heights but wouldn't admit it even to myself. I didn't look down and I drove a lot of pitons (era before the modern equipment.) Kids now, using smear holds, put a lot of faith in the equipment.

I sprayed and FBOed out of Buffalo, Missouri a while. My mechanic said the legal age for a "Buffalo" to grow up was forty. Long before that age, I gave up rock climbing. It doesn't bother me a bit now to crawl up to the edge of Grand Canyon or Canyon de Chelley on my hands and knees to look over the edge. I don't care if the grandkids laugh.

Contact

I've driven a piton or two in my day but most was hexes and wedges. Kids today with their cams and bolted routes dont know how easy they have it. Funny enough, that's what the old timers used to tell us about our hexes and wedges.
Today? I get queazy driving over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.