Archive: Opinions

I have heard a number of local people in politics complain that folks don't let the facts get in the way of what they believe.  I have seen numerous local heroes slandered because people who disagree with them attribute nefarious conspiracies and ulterior motives, often when, in my observation, it's just good people doing what they think is best for the community and getting nothing but abuse in return.

I suppose politicians have it easy.  In politics it's only your feelings on the line... but in other situations it's your life.  Flying Magazine recently ran an article about a relatively new Whole Airplane Recovery Parachute System (WARPS).  WARPS is what it sounds like.  Lose a wing?  Pull the chute and instead of pulverizing your plane when it meets the ground, it -- and you -- are gently lowered so that both are salvageable after the event.

Most people would say, 'Yay.  Good idea.'  But the prevailing attitude in the pilot community is something quite different.  When my own private pilot's certificate was active I was often asked whether I wore a parachute in case something went wrong with the plane.  I answered along the party line: why would I want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane?

With hours of training for just about any emergency, pilots are taught to believe they can bring the plane down safely -- or relatively safely -- in nearly any situation.  I remember my flight instructor Peter pulling the gas knob, immediately turning our plane from a powered vehicle into a glider.  Peter would walk me through the steps.  Manage air speed with attitude (the attitude of the plane relative to the ground, not my personal attitude).  Scan the ground for a field or the best possible landing spot.  Set up the plane in a landing pattern to optimize our chances of a safe landing...


Remember when a plane crashed in a residential neighborhood in Lansing in 2005?  Around four o'clock on an October afternoon a small plane crashed into a neighborhood on Reach Run, off of East Shore Circle.  The pilot of a Mooney aircraft was attempting to land at Tompkins-Ithaca Regional Airport after flying over the lake in heavy fog.   It came in too low, clipping a tree with one wing, which broke off the plane.  The other wing hit a house, scraping a groove into the siding.  The fuselage, with only the pilot on board, came to rest in the front yard of a house there.  The pilot, an architect and furniture designer from New York City, literally walked away from the accident.

Recently I learned that a woman in the house he hit had just put her baby in a crib when the whole house shook from the collision.  But nobody was hurt, so it was a happy ending.  Even when the pilot makes a mistake, his training is sufficient to result in a happy outcome.

Except when it isn't.

So far this year 1,150 people died in 108 plane crashes.  The Flying article cited 312 pilots and passengers in WARPS-equipped planes who survived because the pilots chose to pull the parachute lever rather than gamble that their skills would safely land the plane.  One type of plane, the Cirrus, has made WARPS part of its standard equipment (the company calls it CAPS - Cirrus Airframe Parachute System).  The Cirrus Owner's and Pilot's Association reported 95 chute survivors in 46 incidents in which the pilots chose to pull the lever.  There have been zero fatalities when the lever was pulled within prescribed parameters.

Some pilots argue that if they retain control of the plane they can steer it away from innocents on the ground, even if it results in their own death or injury.  In 15 years of WARPS data collection there have been zero injuries to people on the ground.

Still, many pilots believe they can do better when they do not pull the lever.  Why let facts get in the way?

In our local municipal meetings, as lines of people rise to accuse local representatives -- and often civic minded volunteers -- of this heinous motive or that, a respected colleague from another publication likes to quip in an outraged voice, 'Why don't they read newspapers?'

The problem is that unsubstantiated accusations rarely make our community better.  Ideally the scientific method gathers facts before a conclusion is reached.  Those facts may or may not support your position.  Sometimes they support opposing positions. I am not saying that people shouldn't oppose government initiatives they don't agree with.  I am saying that making up or assuming 'facts' to push an agenda isn't a good way to push that agenda, and may actually harm the community.

Will people believe what they want to believe?  Sure, we're not going to change human nature.  But it seems reasonable to make this a prime New Year's resolution: that before making public accusations we won't just take our neighbor's casual word for it, or just assume something is true.  Instead we should resolve to get, to quote the immoral Sergeant Joe Friday, 'Just the facts, Ma'am.  Just the facts.'

v10i48