Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cirrus Caps Parachute System  
User currently offlineAdrianw From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 17 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

I just picked up the latest issue of "Flying Magazine" and read the article about Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). It seems like this could be a major impact on current and future aviation. The idea that if all else fail that you could deploy a parachute and save yourself? I was thinking on my flight up from KIAD the other day that what if one day there was some system to save jet aircraft.I am looking to buy a light aircraft soon and the cirrus looks like a top choice for me, especially with the glass cockpit option. Comments please. Here is a link to the CAPS system at Cirrus

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/safety/caps/



12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

Cirrus is the pioneer of an actual working system, though the concept has been around for years. Not only did they prove it worked in testing, but some guy faced major structural failure over Texas and had his a$$ saved by pulling the chute. He would have been dead in anything else, because he was up close to 10000 feet. The plane also has a roll cage to cushion the impact of the hard fall, which would likely add a lot of unacceptable weight to a commercial aircraft. Additionally, the parachute system would have to be so much bigger on a commercial plane, it might be impractical. Still, for a GA aircraft that is likely to be produced in big numbers because it costs about half as much as its competition, while outperforming it (Bonanza in particular, but this thing can compete with the speed and range of a Baron Twin), this is going to save a lot of lives.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Yes, the CAPS system is quite revolutionary. One has to keep in mind, though, that the CAPS system is only a fix for a small number of accidents that happen. A parachute isn't going to stop Controlled Flight into Terrain occurrences, thats for sure. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that CAPS is a one-time use system - use it once and the airplane is toast, never to be flown again.

As for the potential with jet aircraft, I think the rationale is that, with jet airplanes, the occurence of accidents that a parachute system would come in handy in are so small that the cost of developing a system and carrying it around on the aircraft, as well as just the sheer complexity of such a system, renders it a waste.

That said, I have flown a Cirrus SR-22 before and it is one heck of a nice plane, and it seems to have the most amenities and best performance compared to cost anywhere. If I was in the market and had the money, I would probably choose a Cirrus.

-Meister



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

>That said, I have flown a Cirrus SR-22 before and it is one heck of a nice plane, and it seems to have the most amenities and best performance compared to cost anywhere. If I was in the market and had the money, I would probably choose a Cirrus.<

You know, they are so popular that they are doing fractional ownership on SR-22s now. Not so bad, considering you can get one a couple years old for about 200K



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3529 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

the SR-22 is a f*cking machine. it has no real practical training use (being high performance but not complex) but damn that thing is great for cruising. 300hp and that sleek body give it a cruise of 180kts easy. I took off from MLI into a small thunderstorm and it took me about 25 mins to get to DBQ and i heard the cirrus check in with departure about 15 mins after i did and he was on the ground about 2 mins after i was in DBQ.


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2274 times:

>the SR-22 is a f*cking machine. it has no real practical training use (being high performance but not complex) but damn that thing is great for cruising. 300hp and that sleek body give it a cruise of 180kts easy. I took off from MLI into a small thunderstorm and it took me about 25 mins to get to DBQ and i heard the cirrus check in with departure about 15 mins after i did and he was on the ground about 2 mins after i was in DBQ.<

I can see the SR-20 as a great training machine. It burns less than 10 gallons an hour and has a 160kts easy cruise. Make it a lot easier for student pilots and the ones around them



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2242 times:

Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that CAPS is a one-time use system - use it once and the airplane is toast, never to be flown again.

Well, that's what insurance is for... Either way, if it saves your life, who cares if the plane can be used again....


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3529 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

I don't know who you're training, but i don't want new pilots flying an airplane with a 300hp engine! You shouldn't be soloing in that airplane unless you have at least 75 hours and a private pilots license. Probably more than that. It would also be a difficult airplane to learn how to instrument fly in. Everything happens a lot faster at 160kts then it does at 110kts (in a 172).


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

>I don't know who you're training, but i don't want new pilots flying an airplane with a 300hp engine! You shouldn't be soloing in that airplane unless you have at least 75 hours and a private pilots license. Probably more than that. It would also be a difficult airplane to learn how to instrument fly in. Everything happens a lot faster at 160kts then it does at 110kts (in a 172).<

You have a point, but I know LH starts their pilot training down in Arizona from zero hours in a Bonanza. Same thing with the US military, at least when my parent's neighbor trained.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGoAllegheny From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Reminds me a little of the French boat company ETAP, which builds an "unsinkable" two-hull sailboat.

Anyway, one look at a month's worth of FAA accident statistics for GA aircraft will tell you that this plane could save a few lives. I would imagine that its best uses would be for engine failure and possibly collision recovery. I can't imagine that it would work for a range of other pilot error situations such as low-altitude stalls/spin-outs (no time to deploy) or poor weather conditions (difficult to know when to deploy in some cases, totally distracted).

But, it's a product that some people will purchase.


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

>Anyway, one look at a month's worth of FAA accident statistics for GA aircraft will tell you that this plane could save a few lives. I would imagine that its best uses would be for engine failure and possibly collision recovery. I can't imagine that it would work for a range of other pilot error situations such as low-altitude stalls/spin-outs (no time to deploy) or poor weather conditions (difficult to know when to deploy in some cases, totally distracted). <

I think the guy over Texas had some sort of structural failure, possibly on the wing. I do think that a parachute could have helped the 2 Bonanzas that took nose dives in the past few years



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3529 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Yes, however the Air Force is...well...The Air Force. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to slack off or actually work for it...in GA, if you're a student pilot with very little time, a Cirrus is way too much airplane for someone like that to handle. And the same with LH in arizona, you're being trained to fly airliners basically, and im sure the instructors who are teaching you are damned good at making sure you are gonna be good enough to move up. I am just saying, in a normal private pilot and on up training program, the Cirrus is not the airplane you want.

#1. too fast, too much power
#2. you can't log complex time (for a single engine land category airplane to be logged as complex time it must have retractable gear, flaps and a constant speed prop). The cirrus has a fixed landing gear.
#3. the cost would be outrageous. A used airplane costs around 200,000, and if you buy new with all the bells and whistles you would be spending probably close to $400,000 on it. This airplane, like any other high powered airplane requires more maitenance and expensive parts and the like...most likely to break even a flight school would have to charge over $300/ hour on it with instructor costs.

Now im not saying the Cirrus isn't a great airplane, because goddamn it is, my only point was that it is not economical nor practical to train primary students in the Cirrus. I would feel a bit apprehensive about placing a commercial student in that airplane if he had never flown a high performance airplane before. It is just sooo much powerrrr.

*edited for un-words*

[Edited 2004-12-02 02:53:35]


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

>#1. too fast, too much power
#2. you can't log complex time (for a single engine land category airplane to be logged as complex time it must have retractable gear, flaps and a constant speed prop). The cirrus has a fixed landing gear.
#3. the cost would be outrageous. A used airplane costs around 200,000, and if you buy new with all the bells and whistles you would be spending probably close to $400,000 on it. This airplane, like any other high powered airplane requires more maitenance and expensive parts and the like...most likely to break even a flight school would have to charge over $300/ hour on it with instructor costs.<

You have a great point, especially about the fixed gear (amazing that it flies that fast). How much does a new 172 cost these days though?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Parachute For Cirrus Light Aircraft posted Sun Sep 2 2001 22:21:18 by NoUFO
Sabre Reservations System For Sale! posted Mon Dec 11 2006 20:05:40 by AA787823
FI: Boeing Patents Anti-Terror Autopilot System posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:23:51 by USAF336TFS
NTSB: Wind A Factor In NYC Cirrus Crash posted Fri Nov 3 2006 21:15:26 by Wjcandee
ATC System Changes By 2016 Article posted Fri Nov 3 2006 16:29:33 by IAHFLYR
Cirrus SR-22 Crash In N. Arizona posted Sat Oct 28 2006 08:42:00 by AirTranTUS
Question About The Runway System At FRA posted Wed Oct 25 2006 00:29:53 by Stylo777
Houston Spotters Article On Airport System Website posted Thu Oct 5 2006 22:29:16 by Philhyde
Delta-Song Crafts And IFE System posted Tue Oct 3 2006 06:13:07 by Boston92
CO Most Concentrated Carrier Around Hubs System? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 02:14:29 by Afrikaskyes