steejk

That may be the case, but I don't think it is an argument against the chute. As pilots, we look at past accidents and it is easy to say 'I wouldn't have done that' but once placed in that situation, the reality is often different. The COPA motto for use of the chute is 'Pull early, Pull often' and I think this represents the fact that training can only go so far (this is seen to be the case both with professional and amateur pilots) and pilots should not 'deserve' to crash due to poor decision making.

I don't think anyone takes the decision of pulling the parachute lightly, but in many cases it is statistically the best path to take (there have been no fatalities through proper use of the parachute). If pilots had been using the parachute in cases where it is not necessary, insurance premiums etc. would reflect this but this has not been the case. I think the main debate is to the risk of injuring someone on the ground. Thankfully this has not happened yet, but it should be the duty of pilots to put the safety of others ahead of themselves.

I fly a Cirrus and it is not inherently more difficult or dangerous to fly then any other aircraft. What Cirrus has done is make an aircraft which brings new pilots into flying with the concept of using an aircraft like you would a car. The debate comes when the addition of technology (e.g parachute) is added and its ability to increase safety by not allowing pilots to make mistakes or always saving them.

The accident statistics are also interesting as actually the average experience of pilots involved in accidents are very high and you are more likely to be involved in an accident when flying with an instructor. There is no doubt though that more training in an aircraft type and currency are the two biggest ways to decrease accident rates. [1]

It is also funny that Cirrus' latest aircraft is a V-tail jet aimed at owner pilots! [2]

1. https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_p...

2. http://cirrusaircraft.com/vision/

That's exactly it - last time I checked SLS seemed to be around 5 years behind that of FDM. SLS is also a more complicated process to get good results out of and certain patents for improvements (such as a Nitrogen atmosphere) are yet to expire.

That printer is definitely not the flagship from Stratasys. It's actually their 'entry level' product and seems to be aimed at companies who want a printer comparable to consumer ones but with perhaps more durability and better support.

A better comparison would be with the Fortus line which is used in commercial applications for functional products.

This is the first I've heard of Transcriptic, but it sounds amazing.

Initially I was sceptical of YC working with startups which would have more conventionally come out of universities etc., but this is the sort of technology that has the ability to completely revolutionise scientific research.