I guess that speculation and such is quite normal. It’s nice with opportunities to clear things up such as in this thread. 🙂

I would like to add that the CAPS does not provide total safety. Even a safe deployment does not guarantee the survival of those onboard. The impact with the surface below will still be rough. Unless I’m mistaken it is comparable with a free fall from approximately 20 feet. The hull, landing gear and seats are designed to absorb some energy during an impact, but things can still go wrong.

An older thread involving some Cirrus aircraft and CAPS discussion here.

I was meaning more of peoples opinions on owning/flying them.

I think the SR20 is a relatively nice plane which in my opinion is well suited for e.g. cross-country flying and instrument training. It has a nice EFIS and avionics layout and comfy seats in the cockpit. The left seat features a left-hand side yoke and armrest which I think works OK.

I’m not completely sure about it, but I think the lateral stability is a bit high for my taste as far as light SEP planes go, judging from required stick forces when rolling. At least compared to other SEP planes I’ve flown. It doesn’t feel as good as e.g. a Bulldog 100/101 to me, but then again I guess it wasn’t meant to be like that. Also I don’t like the way the cockpit roof tends to block the view to the right during right-hand turns when flying VFR from the left seat. I much prefer a bubble canopy for VFR flying, although the sun can be more of an issue in that case.

I think it works OK for general airwork, but it’s not certified for any aerobatics or spins.

It is intended for use with structural failures and collisions.

And spins. And maybe for ditching, if I remember correctly.

I share your opinions on CAPS deployment. It is meant as a last resort in case a forced landing seems more or less impossible.

With the UK and France as the only nations prepared to put their servicemen on the line, NATO is pretty irrelevant.

In what context? You can hardly be referring to Libya or Afghanistan.

I’m a little curious why no one here seems to have mentioned UN Security Council Resolution 1973. This resolution seems to be used as a strong reference when governments of participating states explain Operation Unified Protector. I also get the impression that the resolution provides a legal basis which is different from e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I guess that the behaviour of the Gaddafi government, the calls for assistance from the opposition in Libya and the reactions from some Arab states are among the things which have contributed to the passing of the resolution and the international resolve to enforce it.

Some European politicans have said something along the line of that they feel it is important to back up UN decisions with military force when called for/when necessary. A spoken reason for this is to strengthen the UN as an important political body in the world.

Personally I support Unified Protector, but I do have some concerns about the future of Libya. Who the rebels are, what will they do if Gaddafi falls, how will all of this affect al-Qaeda’s activities in the region (as well as other groups which might be of interest), what if a stalemate lasts etc.

When it comes to the possibility of “less visible” agendas which some people claim exist in this, I mostly think it’s speculation. Even if some participating states hope to serve some of their own interests by engaging in the operation, it still seems to me that the military effort helps enforce the UN resolution correctly by reducing Gaddafi’s military capacity to threaten civilians.

I should of course take some precautions since I can’t possibly know everything, but right now I think the operation seems just (though I’m sure some things can be done better).

of course not, but had he been shooting at anyone, we’d have been told so.

I don’t know. I guess the fog of war may be an issue.

[quote=”TooCool_12f;1730557]besides, what about all these aircraft nicely parked that were destroyed while also a threat to nobody?[/quote]

Maybe not a direct and imminent threat, but a potential threat nonetheless. Perhaps the LARAF was considered as one of the primary threats against coalition assets and civilians to begin with. OCA strikes would help remedy that.

A NFZ operation will often involve offensive steps to reduce threats against aircraft enforcing the NFZ. Some coalition members made this crystal clear before the resolution was passed.

[quote=”TooCool_12f;1730557]the UN resolution (which obviously nobody goves a damn about, to stay polite) was about a “no fly zone” not about transforming NATO in “rebel airforce”[/QUOTE]

I think more people should take note of paragraph 4 of S/RES/1973 (2011), if I remember correctly.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions11.htm (pardon the politics)

I’m not in a position to judge coalition and NATO operations based on the news coverage. I don’t know what is being done right or wrong according to this and that. I think there is a lot we don’t know. I don’t even know the RoE. I can only trust that NATO crews are doing their best to accomplish their mission.

My personal opinion is that Sweden should not have contributed these aircraft anyway, being a waste of my tax money. In fact I have been against the whole no fly concept from the start, and believe that the countries involved have opened a can of worms that will prove to be a damned nuisance for years to come.
No doubt I will get some flak for saying so, but as a Swedish taxpayer I feel entitled to voice my opinion.

You’re fully entitled, of course. 🙂

I think it’s a good thing that Sweden is able and willing to contribute and add some force in support of the operation. Perhaps this addition of assets for NFZ enforcement can enable NATO to allocate more aircraft for air-to-ground work?

The F16CG is useless against non-emitting targets .

As far as I know, the F-16CJ can also perform DEAD missions using other weapons such as JDAM. Unless I’m mistaken it can operate as a combined SEAD/DEAD platform.