[sokoloff]

That particular phrasing and calculation, suggesting that every chute deployment without fatalities represents that number of people “saved” is quite controversial and IMO not supported by an analysis of the data.

I think it’s great that the system exists, it has undoubtedly saved lives, but unless Cirrus crashes are overwhelmingly fatal compared to other airplanes, it’s overstating “fatal accidents turned into non-fatal accidents” by likely a factor of ~3 and number of fatalities avoided by ~4.

This type of mishap is probably the best scenario for a chute, though. I have no illusions that following a mid-air that I am still a strong favorite to bring my non-chute airplane to earth without fatalities. (The stats say I’m about a 60:40 favorite to do so.)

CAPS saves lives. CAPS has not saved the lives of every person who survived a CAPS deployment, because most of those would have survived anyway. In most off-airport arrival scenarios, I’d be wishing to have a chute.

* - One of my instructors was in command for CAPS Event #46

[mannykannot]

I completely agree, but for a more complete analysis, we would have to consider the fatality rate for the sort of crashes in which CAPS is employed.

IIRC, Cirrus is now encouraging pilots to use CAPS in any engine failure with sufficient altitude for it to work, on account of the number of such accidents, in CAPS-equipped aircraft, where the pilot chose not to use it, and someone aboard was killed or seriously injured. This will presumably further muddy the used/saved ratio, while probably increasing the total number of saved.

In a collision situation, at least one as violent as this one, you can't be sure whether some vital control or structure has been damaged to the point where it is about to fail, so using a parachute of any sort, where feasible, seems to be the rational choice.

Quite by accident, I came across this pucker-inducing article a couple of days ago, where thre's little doubt that bailing out, if it were an option, would have been the right thing to do, even though this flight ended safely in this case.

https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/student-flight-control-j...

(On second thoughts, if the pilot had a parachute, he could have attempted to free up the controls without making his situation any worse.)

[elliekelly]

Are there any fees associated with an emergency landing like that? I imagine La Guardia runways are in pretty high demand but pilots have a culture that prioritizes safety above all else so I’d be curious which takes precedence.

[sokoloff]

There are no emergency-specific fees. Whether Newark (I think it was EWR, not LGA) would assess a normal landing fee is probably not a consideration for the pilot, especially back then.

Landing fees are quite reasonable. Off peak, the landing fee would be $25 now. On peak, it would be $125.

https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airports/pdfs/scheduleofc...

[elliekelly]

Wow that's surprisingly low! I was imagining the fee was thousands of dollars.

[TylerE]

Where they'll get you (for normal operations) is things like parking fees. At Newark, for an aircraft less than 100,000lbs that is $45/8 hrs.

[maigret]

It depends on your aircraft weight basically

[mannykannot]

Tangentially, one reason why Cirrus has been persuading pilots to use CAPS as soon as they get into difficulties is because it was suspected that pilots often chose not to do so (or delay until too late) because it was widely believed (and is true in most cases) that doing so totals the airplane - i.e. an economic disincentive to put safety first.

[mlyle]

> . I have no illusions that following a mid-air that I am still a strong favorite to bring my non-chute airplane to earth without fatalities. (The stats say I’m about a 60:40 favorite to do so.)

Note this was a midair with a much larger, faster aircraft and at an unfavorable aspect. The empennage was sliced nearly entirely through by the other aircraft's propeller and the elevator/horizontal stabilizer is deflected into a position commanding a steep dive.