ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3294 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.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3231 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.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30014 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3217 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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Wilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3210 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...
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3196 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.
MD11Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3199 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.
Leftypilot79 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 455 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3158 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?
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3109 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.
Mr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
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.