Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First Lived Saved By The Cirrus CAPs System  
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Not really a fan of this aircraft, but this is good news:


At worst, you screw up and die.
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1670 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

I have always though that chutes on ultralights made a lot of sense given their low weight and speeds, their near-uncontrollability in gusting winds and their tendency to fold up like a lawn chair. Likewise with spin chutes on airplanes with flat spin tendencies.

There really isn't enough unconfused info here to regard this as anything but a very rare occurrence that, luckily, saved a pilot's life. Was it a flap or an aileron; did whatever it was separate from the airframe or was it just operating weirdly? Who knows from this article?

What the 'chute won't do is help much with the common causes of light G/A accidents. I can't see it helping with continued flight into IMC by non-instrument pilots or with low-altitude stall/spins. In the first case, the pilot doesn't even know that they are in very bad trouble until it is too late and, in the second case, the 'chute would only be good for covering the bodies.

I just hope that the 'chute doesn't instill a false sense of security that makes people go ahead and bore into clouds without an instrument rating, fly single-engine XC at night or do widow-maker turns going from base to final.

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

Heres another article about it by someone that appears to know what they are talking about, oh it has pictures too.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Well said. Up until this incident, the Cirrus system was what - 0 for 3, maybe 4? Not very good odds by any account. I think the larger question is why so many losses for such a new design? At this rate they'll be crashing them faster than they can build 'em. Personally, I agree that they make a lot of sense in ultralights; but I still believe they are an unnecessary "crutch" in larger aircraft. A parachute will never make up for basic pilot skills and ongoing recurrent training.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29885 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

This yahoo, couldn't find a place to make a controled landing on a golf course???

You know if he had been thinking he probably would have been able to set it down just fine and not totaled his aircraft in the process. And not endangered anybody on the ground since he would have had some control over where the airplane when, something you don't have under a bunch of silk.

Any Cirrus that you blow the chute on is an automatic total since the runners for the chute are run under the fiberglass cabin skin, When they yank through it with chute deployment it destroys the cabin.

User currently offlineWilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 3033 times:

Just my 2 cents on the system. From looking at other accidents with this aircraft (which i am not a fan of) I find several problems with the system. My main problem is that the system destroies the aircraft when you punch it. No big deal (thats why you carry hull insurance) but, it seams the pilot (who did something stupid (in alot of cases) to get him self into the mess) is willing to push it trying to recover instead of punching it until it is to late to recover thus augering in. I also think it gives the yahoo(i mean pilot) a false sense of security allowing him to push the envelope, again only getting himself into the dangerous situation, followed by him trying to fly himself out of the situation instead of punching out...

just my 2 cents on it..

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3019 times:

Well I guess it times for me to comment.

Its good news that he survived, a situation that could have been dangerous.

I hate the Cirrus, its a fine aircraft on the surface, it flies great, but I'm not a big fan of an personal type aircraft that is not spin apporved. Its not that a user can get into them, but its the fact that the aircraft has been tested to be able to exit them, besides the hit and miss CAPs system.

I guess Jetguy hit on it, training is the key, but training doesn't prevent all situations.

There are some problems that were hit upon in the article, one about the AD about the trim tab nut that need to be replaced. The SR-22 has had a bad run, hopefully Cirrus can figure out whats wrong and get back on their feet, I like the concept, I just don't like the plane.

BTW: Just now when I went to read the article in-depth there was a Cirrus ad above the news article about the crash. Talk about bad timing.

At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineMD11Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3022 times:

What bothers me about the Cirrus SR-22 is that it was not spin-tested and I'm amazed that the FAA (small airplane directorate) had allowed this, which IMHO, a direct violation of the CFR. I believe that they only test the aircraft "spin tendency" by stalling with full stick aft but only half rudder and it was OK (did not spin). Having the chute was one of the reasons Cirrus didn't have to spin-test and I really believe that was a fallacy.

The accident prior to this one was caused by a spin, resulting in fatalities. The chute was not deployed. Though no one would ever know for sure what happened but I suspect that ... apparently the owner of the brand new SR-22 and his passenger decided to buzz out their new aircraft, stalled it with more than half rudder and entered a spin. Unless they were strapped in tight, in a (bucking) spin it would have been pretty hard to reach the chute lever and then I understand that it would require quite a large force...and when they were bouncing around, they probably did not have enough leverage to pull it. It would have made the parachute quite useless for spin recovery then.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29885 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3007 times:

I wonder what the hull insurance rate is going to be for somebody that does punch the chute.

User currently offlineLeftypilot79 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 455 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

The Cirrus creeps me out. It looks ok....but it just doesn't have a safe feeling about it. I bet it spins like crap and cirrus knows it. Thats probably why they put the chute on in the 1st place. What about the Lancair? Is it spin tested/approved?


User currently offlineSkyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Hey you guys are too quick to judge. Many (all?) of you have never flown a Cirrus. I haven't either, but I just don't see how you can comment on it's capabilities based soley on what you have read / infered. Also, regarding the comment that the pilot was a 'yahoo' because he couldn't find a landing spot in a golf course, you weren't there, you don't know what happened, and it just might be that the safest course of action was to pull the chute. Who cares about the plane, when you're in an emergency situation you're concerned about the preservation of yourself and of those on the ground.

User currently offlineWilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2892 times:

a local FBO in atlanta (PDK airport) does flight training in one

User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Hi guys.

I wanted to mention that I agree with ThirtyEcho on how the CAPS parachute probably won't be of any use regarding certain common causes of light GA accidents such as low-altitude stall/spins (especially while turning in the pattern) or continued flight into IMC by non-instrument rated pilots.

My reasons are based on the fact that a CAPS parachute deployment has a minumum demonstrated altitude loss from a one turn spin of 920 feet. So if a pilot stalls and begins to spin while making a turn in the pattern which usually has a standard altitude of 1,000 feet AGL, by the time an average pilot realizes that he's in trouble and can't recover and decides to launch the chute...he'll be much to low for it to fully open.

Also, the maximum certified CAPS deployment speed is only 135 knots indicated. So if a pilot who's flying along in instrument conditions starts suffering from spatial disorientation, losses control, enters a spiral dive, and decides to deploy the CAPS because he's noticed that his wings are gone after passing the aircraft's redline airspeed (the Cirrus SR22 has a cruising speed of 180 knots, the redline is obviously higher), the parachute will only fail or rip off.

The Cirrus SR20 (max gross weight - 2,900 pds) and SR22 (max gross weight - 3,400 pds) have parachutes that weigh the same. However, the SR22's parachute has beefier Kevlar attachments and beefier parachute materal in selected spots to make it stronger. The CAPS info above is based on the lighter SR20.

I do believe that any pilot would be very happy to have the last option of using a whole airplane recovery parachute after experiencing a deadly mid-air collision which apparently is why the CAPS system was designed.

Chris  Smile

"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic First Lived Saved By The Cirrus CAPs System
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The 'Self Protection System'? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 17:50:10 by EI787
Fly By The Weight Not By The Price posted Mon Feb 27 2006 20:00:26 by AirWillie6475
Ditching By The Use Of Autopilot & Autothrottle posted Thu Sep 1 2005 23:23:22 by MerlinIIIB
Who Was First With Fly-by-wire posted Tue Sep 14 2004 21:37:01 by Flybynight
Atc Changes To The National Airspace System (NAS) posted Tue Mar 9 2004 06:33:52 by Coa764
Civil Penalties Imposed By The FAA posted Tue Jul 22 2003 05:45:47 by 737doctor
What Is This By The Rudder? posted Sun Feb 23 2003 17:21:12 by Flyingbronco05
Power By The Hour posted Thu Mar 14 2002 12:59:52 by TechRep
How Does The Air-Conditioning System Work? posted Wed Jun 20 2001 04:06:04 by United Airline
How Does Work The Water Injection System? posted Fri Aug 18 2000 13:11:08 by Gabriel

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format