Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Scooter01
Topic Author
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

Ballistic Recovery

Sun May 30, 2010 9:15 am

Last Friday evening (May 28), the pilot of a Cirrus SR-22 saw the need to make an emergency landing in the mountainous terrain in central southern Norway. The aircraft was equipped with the CAPS, and all 4 occupants of the aircraft walked away from the incident.

Article (in Norwegian) and a video of the wreckage and the terrain it ended up in can be seen here:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/05/30/n...heter/flystyrt/innenriks/11920756/

The airframe probably got bent from the initial shock when the 'chute opened, landing in the rocks did the rest, but there are 4 guys still with their loved ones...

There is no information to why this incident happened, but I heard speculation goes to icing.

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sun May 30, 2010 9:25 am

good system, saved man lives.

I don't like cirusses as aircraft that much (prefer moneys, columbia bonanzas and lancairs, faster and don't guzzle that much fuel) but I like parachute.

I think in ultralights it mandatory to have one. It should be on every GA plane.

But it sure is stupid if you go into cloud and pull ou the parachute
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 4:10 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 1):
I think in ultralights it mandatory to have one. It should be on every GA plane.

No, and not only no, heck no. The costs associated with the system are astronomical for the very small level of protection they give. Too much weight, too much of a risk in a crash (explosion hazard) and just general stupidity it puts in some pilots decision making process. Don't forget it costs 10K every 10 years to get the thing repacked, which is mandatory on the Cirrus.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 4:47 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2):
just general stupidity it puts in some pilots decision making process

Agreed. Specially with this part. These rich persons that just so happen to have their planes as toys, which seem to be the great majority of Cirrus owners, suddenly feel invincible and overly confident because of the system. A competent, disciplined, responsible pilot would NEVER put himself in a situation where the parachute would be needed to begin with.
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 6:17 am

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 3):
A competent, disciplined, responsible pilot would NEVER put himself in a situation where the parachute would be needed to begin with.

Hmm.

What if you are flying along, doing everything right, and some idiot hits you from behind?
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 6:48 am

Quoting swiftski (Reply 4):
Hmm.

What if you are flying along, doing everything right, and some idiot hits you from behind?

That is the only legitimate use for the CAPS system, or whatever its called. Otherwise, it's a waste of resources, weight and money, and nothing more.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 6:49 am

Quoting swiftski (Reply 4):
What if you are flying along, doing everything right, and some idiot hits you from behind?

I knew somebody would bring something like that up.     

Well in that case you could very well be screwed either way. Who knows if the airframe would hold up anyways after such an incident.

But what I was getting at is that from the several reports I've read about Cirrus crashes using the 'chute, almost all of them involved "inadvertent" (my a$$) icing and/or severe weather encounters. In other words, completely preventable. And I don't recall any 'chute deployment due to random airframe damage or something completely out of the pilots control.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great system.

But when put in the hands of Joe Richie Rich Lawyer who just got his shiny new Cirrus and brand new PPL to go with it and decides its a smart idea to go flying on a day with convective and icing SIGMETS left and right, along with major freaking huge CB clouds right in front of his nose, then he deserves a Darwin Award, not a parachute.

The Cirrus is the new Dr and Lawyer killer, just like the V-tail Bonanzas back in the day...   


***Yes I know both planes are safe, but you got the same type of noob complacent pilot-owners with crap safety mentalities flying them.

[Edited 2010-05-30 23:56:03]
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 7:14 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 5):
That is the only legitimate use for the CAPS system, or whatever its called. Otherwise, it's a waste of resources, weight and money, and nothing more.

I was also trained to use it in the instance of an engine failure over terrain that I did not feel I could land on (see the picture in the article - my Norwegian isn't great but it looks to be the case here).

Another time is in case of Pilot Incapacitation. My pax brief includes this. "Do not touch this unless I tell you to or unless I become incapacitated. In either case... [explain how to activate]"

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
Don't get me wrong, it's a great system.

IMHO, even though you shouldn't find yourself in a deployment situation, it's good to know it's there.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 9:27 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2):
No, and not only no, heck no. The costs associated with the system are astronomical for the very small level of protection they give. Too much weight, too much of a risk in a crash (explosion hazard) and just general stupidity it puts in some pilots decision making process. Don't forget it costs 10K every 10 years to get the thing repacked, which is mandatory on the Cirrus.

In Europe it is different, I think you can 450 kg mtow without parachute and 470 with parachute for ultralight.
And for ultralight they are not that expensive around 3000 Euros for 600 kg airplane. The parachutes aren't as big as one on the cirrus,.

Parachutes are great for composite aircraft in case of lightning strike. Lycoming (rotaxes even less) don't have the reliability of turbines. These engine aren't used regulary, on 50 or 100 check, only minor detalies light plugs and oil are changed
 
User avatar
Scooter01
Topic Author
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 am

Quoting swiftski (Reply 4):
What if you are flying along, doing everything right, and some idiot hits you from behind?
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
Well in that case you could very well be screwed either way. Who knows if the airframe would hold up anyways after such an incident.

-as in Boulder, Colorado.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86kyoogPvM
As far as I understand the fueltanks cracked in the midair, and the flaming wreck landed softly
-just as intended.

My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.
Looks like we are getting somewhere...

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 10:14 am

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 9):
My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.
Looks like we are getting somewhere...

I think that it is a good idea because, irrespective of cost, it does in some situations offer you a higher change of survival. Look on the COPA website, there is a big article on CAPS deployment statistics. Expensive, yes, but I'd rather fork out the cost of that than the $0.40 it would cost me to telephone my friends/passengers next of kin to let them know I had survived an accident that had killed their loved one.
 
Okie
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 10:52 am

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
Don't get me wrong, it's a great system.

But when put in the hands of Joe Richie Rich Lawyer who just got his shiny new Cirrus and brand new PPL to go with it and decides its a smart idea to go flying on a day with convective and icing SIGMETS left and right, along with major freaking huge CB clouds right in front of his nose, then he deserves a Darwin Award, not a parachute.



You are correct great system, and I agree with your statement, but I would add that there seems to be the misconception with these low time pilots that if they get into trouble or in situations that they get behind the aircraft that all you have to do is pull the chute. The approach that this is just the reset button on a video game and you get to start all over just does not play out in real life.

Okie
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 4:47 pm

Quoting swiftski (Reply 7):
I was also trained to use it in the instance of an engine failure over terrain that I did not feel I could land on (see the picture in the article - my Norwegian isn't great but it looks to be the case here).

Fair enough, but many people would be surprised how survivable a low speed impact is. If you can get a plane down to stall speed as you enter tree's or whatever is below you, you've got a fighting chance to survive.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 8):
In Europe it is different, I think you can 450 kg mtow without parachute and 470 with parachute for ultralight.
And for ultralight they are not that expensive around 3000 Euros for 600 kg airplane. The parachutes aren't as big as one on the cirrus,.

We don't have any allowance for the system in the states, so by putting it on, you loose a significant portion of useful load. I recall even on a light sport airplane, you end up wasting 40-50 pounds that otherwise you could put people/fuel in. When you've only got 500 pounds to work with, that ends up being 10% of the load.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 7:05 pm

What are you talking about ?

galaxy resuce system adds 10 kgs or so not 50 pounds. And that 470 kg limit is on paper only az least for this aircraft
http://www.pipistrel.si/plane/virus-sw/technical-data
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 8:04 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 13):
galaxy resuce system adds 10 kgs or so not 50 pounds. And that 470 kg limit is on paper only az least for this aircraft

The BRS recovery system as found on most LSA's is in the neighborhood of 50 pounds installed. The canister, rocket and parachute weigh roughly 35 pounds, which doesn't include any mounting hardware or structural modifications that must be made. I'm sorry, but on an airplane that's limited to 1320 pounds, 50 pound is a large portion of weight to give up for marginal safety capability.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon May 31, 2010 10:25 pm

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 9):
My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.

Good idea. Principles aside, you are *always* going to have people with more money than sense buying airplanes (and some folks with terrible luck) and getting into situations they can't recover from. Better to have the 'chute than not.

It's like arguing you shouldn't have envelope protection because no pilot should ever go outside the envelope...the two situations don't go together.

Tom.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:40 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
I'm sorry, but on an airplane that's limited to 1320 pounds, 50 pound is a large portion of weight to give up for marginal safety capability.

If you checked you would see that this aircraft has 330 kg usefull load, and it is only 2 seater. You can take 2 85kg persons full fuel and still you have 80 kg for baggage or grs. And it climbs with 1500 ft/min rate with is 100 km rotax

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15):
Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 9):
My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.

It is, you don't have to use, if you don't want to. Why are there ejection seats in fighters?
And self deployment is debatable, even aribags in car can self deploy
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:06 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 16):
If you checked you would see that this aircraft has 330 kg usefull load, and it is only 2 seater. You can take 2 85kg persons full fuel and still you have 80 kg for baggage or grs. And it climbs with 1500 ft/min rate with is 100 km rotax

I wasn't aware we were talking about a specific aircraft (and if we were, I have no clue what it is). I brought up the American LSA specifications (which are probably the most common plane to have the BRS system on, other than Cirrus) because of their weight limitations. If you don't have weight limitations, fine. But with the LSA category, planes are limited to 1,320 lbs. So, for me, 50+- pounds is a large portion of that, considering the useful load is probably at best going to be 500-550 pounds.


-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:17 pm

American LSA has a 120 knot limit, so they had to reduce from 147 kn with fixed pitch propeller just to satisfy some stupid FAA law.


What do you need to fly LSA, ppl? nothing?
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:57 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 18):
American LSA has a 120 knot limit, so they had to reduce from 147 kn with fixed pitch propeller just to satisfy some stupid FAA law.

Stupid FAA law? No, its not. Its a worldwide accepted ASTM standard on light airplanes. The FAA wanted even lower limitations on the LSA rules, but they were convinced by the rest of the world to move upwards.

Basically, a plane is limited to 2 people, 120 KCAS, 1320 pounds (or 1430 if an amphibious plane), and a stall speed of no more than 45 knots. In order to fly an LSA, one must have at least a sport pilot certificate, which requires no medical certification, other than a drivers license. They have to have a minimum of 20 hours of flight time prior to taking a checkride. Once they pass, they are good to go, can fly in Day VFR conditions, no higher than 10,000 MSL or 2,000 AGL, whichever is higher. Can be permitted to operate in controlled airspace with the proper training.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:19 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 19):
Stupid FAA law? No, its not. Its a worldwide accepted ASTM standard on light airplanes. The FAA wanted even lower limitations on the LSA rules, but they were convinced by the rest of the world to move upwards.

I was reffering to stupid speed limit, why would you intentionally downgrade a plane? Otherwise US LSA is cool, only performances are trimmed. And it is not international, why are you so ignorant.
Maybe in the future, for the tme being you could get a Permit to fly this pipistrel virus SW with ppl. (but its use is very limited)
Surely the EAA copied FAA in almost every respect, and to top it they don't allow to fly American ATP in European Airlines and vice versa.
Does LSA count as total time towards CPL?
 
GolfOscarDelta
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:38 pm

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 6):
The Cirrus is the new Dr and Lawyer killer, just like the V-tail Bonanzas back in the day...

Hah you ain't seen nothin yet, wait till this comes out .... (It has CAPS and costs 1/4 of what a decently equipped Sr-22 costs)

http://iconaircraft.com/Experience-ICON.html

.... and then we'll see how many doctors and lawyers exist with more money than brains. Even the company pitches it as a sort of a playboy-lifestyle-must-have-toy and those who saw Iron Man 2 probably saw this in Tony Stark's garage next to his AC Shelby Cobra.

So with all due respect to Kirk, Matt (who i greatly respect) and the rest of the team who designed this (mostly ex-Scaled/spaceship one guys), just considering the fact that most of these awesome little planes will be bought by bankers, lawyers and playboys so that their trophy wives don't get bored, i'm not really sure what kind of a safety record and reputation it will end up having.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:23 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 20):
Does LSA count as total time towards CPL?

Why wouldn't it. An airplane is an airplane. Its not like you have to have a sport pilot certificate to fly an LSA. Anyone with a sport pilot or higher certificate can fly one. Its a single engine airplane, so anyone can log time in it, as long as they are legal to do so.

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 21):
Hah you ain't seen nothin yet, wait till this comes out .... (It has CAPS and costs 1/4 of what a decently equipped Sr-22 costs

Ugh, the Icon A5. Great idea, love the concept, but the approach is horrid. Last I heard, they are having massive problems getting enough weight out of it to be legal for LSA operations. And face it, if they can't get it in the LSA category, its going to be DOA. Plus don't get me started on the fact that Vern Raburn is involved with it. Knowing his history, they'll come out with an innovative plane, but try to bring things out incrementally, and not deliver on promises (ala the Eclipse 500). I'd hate to be an investor in the project with him involved.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
GolfOscarDelta
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:40 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22):
but the approach is horrid.

I'm curious, any specific reasons?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22):
Vern Raburn is involved with it. Knowing his history

From what i know he's only an advisor. The guys who are running Icon on a day to day basis and actually working on the designing and manufacturing the plane are all great guys with great backgrounds. So personally i don't think its going to be DoA.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:03 pm

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 23):

I'm curious, any specific reasons?

Lots and lots of weight tied up in the wing folding operation, even more so when it has the automated system in it, and for very little use. Without the wing fold, it is basically an Aventura II, with some cleaned up aerodynamic lines. It shouldn't be taking them this long to get the thing to market, in my opinion. But, they want to sex the thing up to try to sell it to the non-pilot's, in order to make money, which I can understand. But, I'm not sure how many they are going to be able to sell, given the current economic situation. Had the plane been out 5 years ago, it would have been a totally different story.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:44 am

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 21):

Hah you ain't seen nothin yet, wait till this comes out ....

It actually looks somewhat interesting. However, I do have more problems with the Sport Pilot license itself than the airplanes themselves.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:47 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22):
Plus don't get me started on the fact that Vern Raburn is involved with it.

Yeah, he is kind of the Jim Bede of this generation...  
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
GolfOscarDelta
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:17 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 24):
But, I'm not sure how many they are going to be able to sell, given the current economic situation.

Well they have an orderbook nearing 500, which i think is pretty good for a manufacturer completely new to the game.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 24):
it is basically an Aventura II, with some cleaned up aerodynamic lines. It shouldn't be taking them this long to get the thing to market

Hmmm could be. Also if you look at the specs it (A5) has the least cruise speed the least useful payload and yet costs the most of any of the LSA's on the market.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 24):
Lots and lots of weight tied up in the wing folding operation, even more so when it has the automated system in it, and for very little use.

But remember these guys are not out here to sell an aircraft. They are here to sell an experience; the experience in the founder's words "Of being a rockstar". Of course every single playboy and rich bugger to whom an airplane is a toy wants to show off his toy to his friends and relatives, whats the point if its kept locked away in a hangar at his nearby airport. Hence the whole foldback load on a trailer and tow it back to your party concept. So the wing folding equipment here is a necessity (for the lifestyle) rather than an option. That aircraft is as much a show statement to a rich lawyer or doctor as is his Ferrari and his trophy wife. Many of these will end up where most Ferrari's end up; on wreckedexotics.com and thats what i hate to even think about.

Any serious pilot who's just trying to have fun flying and pottering about in the sky would i think either get a Skycatcher, Remos, Flightdesign or a Sportcruiser, simply because of the avionics options available (i know LSA's are not IFR and all that but that doesn't seem to stop manufacturers from cramming in all the fancy equipment they can lay their hands on)

Thank heavens this thing isnt an LSA nor is it certified.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 25):
I do have more problems with the Sport Pilot license itself than the airplanes themselves.

I guess as long as those folks stay out of any crowded airspace it should be fine.

[Edited 2010-06-02 20:18:20]
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:09 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22):
Why wouldn't it. An airplane is an airplane. Its not like you have to have a sport pilot certificate to fly an LSA. Anyone with a sport pilot or higher certificate can fly one. Its a single engine airplane, so anyone can log time in it, as long as they are legal to do so.

Good question, why wouldn't it? Here in Europe LSA or Ultralightes (planes, not trikes, but is actually the same category)
doesn't count towards CPL (In best case you can claim 10 porcent of Total time, but no more than 10 hours)
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:15 am

And they are harder to fly the than General Avation

Most UL and LSA in europe are flown with right hand, there is more cabin jogging during landing, flaps, speedbrakes.
For pipistrel virus SW you have to use way more rudder in turns (initially you find this quite sruprising, roll rate is fenomenal) also the takeoff climb angle, you can easily reach 1000 ft in 30 seconds.

Probably not a best aircraft if you want steady IFR flying like arrow
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:57 pm

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 27):

Well they have an orderbook nearing 500, which i think is pretty good for a manufacturer completely new to the game.

At one point, the Eclipse 500 had over 2,600 orders. I hate to be the skeptic, but anything with Raburn invovled, and I have to doubt it. As was said, he's like Jim Bede (if not worse, in my opinion).

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 27):
Any serious pilot who's just trying to have fun flying and pottering about in the sky would i think either get a Skycatcher, Remos, Flightdesign or a Sportcruiser, simply because of the avionics options available (i know LSA's are not IFR and all that but that doesn't seem to stop manufacturers from cramming in all the fancy equipment they can lay their hands on)

You can fly IFR in an LSA, if its equipped properly, and the pilot is properly certificated. So, private and instrument, and you're good to go, with the right airplane. I know the Tecnam's can be made to do so, as can the Zodiac 601 (IIRC). Not that I'd want to, but its totally possible.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 28):
Good question, why wouldn't it? Here in Europe LSA or Ultralightes (planes, not trikes, but is actually the same category)
doesn't count towards CPL (In best case you can claim 10 porcent of Total time, but no more than 10 hours)

Sorry to hear that. Over here, you could potentially get all of your ratings (minus the multi-engine part), once the FAA drops the complex requirement for the commercial certificate. That's rumored to be happening sometime this year, but who knows for sure.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
GolfOscarDelta
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:03 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 30):
At one point, the Eclipse 500 had over 2,600 orders

Dang!!! yeah i totally forgot about that debacle.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 30):
You can fly IFR in an LSA, if its equipped properly, and the pilot is properly certificated

Thats right. But afaik while all the LSA's seem to be IFR equipped none of them are actually approved for IFR in IMC by their manufacturers (which is required for all LSA's IIRC), only for IFR training in VMC (which is what the private and instrument rated pilots are allowed to do while the Sport Pilots are not even allowed this)
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:54 am

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 31):

Thats right. But afaik while all the LSA's seem to be IFR equipped none of them are actually approved for IFR in IMC by their manufacturers (which is required for all LSA's IIRC), only for IFR training in VMC (which is what the private and instrument rated pilots are allowed to do while the Sport Pilots are not even allowed this)

Nope. The Tecnam series can be flown IMC as can the Zodiac CH601. Not that I'd want to, do to the wing loading, but it can be (and is) done, as can be seen here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqAaQKjWsfU

-DiamondFlyr
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:08 am

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 31):

Thats right. But afaik while all the LSA's seem to be IFR equipped none of them are actually approved for IFR in IMC by their manufacturers (which is required for all LSA's IIRC), only for IFR training in VMC (which is what the private and instrument rated pilots are allowed to do while the Sport Pilots are not even allowed this)

Which LSA seem to be IFR equipped, a?
And for that matter which GA is equipped for icing, Cirrus, Seneca?
An IMC doesn't necessarly mean dangerous
 
User avatar
Scooter01
Topic Author
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:32 am

Gentlemen!

Very interesting posts, but I feel you are getting quite a bit off topic.

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 9):
My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.

Please stick to the topic or start a separate thread.

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5731
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:46 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 33):
And for that matter which GA is equipped for icing, Cirrus, Seneca?

Mooneys have optional "weeping wing" de-icing which I believe is certified for known icing, and there may be others (Bonanza?). Cessna 210's used to be available with de-ice, but they are out of production. I believe most twins are available with de-icing. As to the parachute, the Cirrus actually has a fairly poor safety record, and the parachute has registered very few "saves." There have been accidents where it could have saved the occupants but wasn't used. From what I have seen it is not much of a safety enhancement in practice; it may make some passengers feel better, however. I am not much attracted by it; my next plane will be a Mooney, not a Cirrus. I believe that the Mooney actually has a better safety record; I know it is about the best for retractibles.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:49 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
As to the parachute, the Cirrus actually has a fairly poor safety record, and the parachute has registered very few "saves."

Woah!         

"There have been 20 known CAPS activations. 17 deployments succeeded and involved 35 survivors with one fatality (One unborn child was also saved in CAPS pull #13)."

CAPS pulls that involve injuries (you will see all the data of the COPA website) have clear trends: Low Altitude Pulls (not recommended) and pulls well above Vpd (133KIAS).

This data does not include the Norway pull, so revised data would be: 21 Pulls, 18 Successful, 39 Survivors. Poor safety record? I don't think so.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
There have been accidents where it could have saved the occupants but wasn't used.

If the pilot chose not to use it, that's not the fault of the system!
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:48 am

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 34):
Gentlemen!

Very interesting posts, but I feel you are getting quite a bit off topic.

Obviously you are not a gentlemen

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
Mooneys have optional "weeping wing" de-icing which I believe is certified for known icing, and there may be others (Bonanza?). Cessna 210's used to be available with de-ice, but they are out of production. I believe most twins are available with de-icing. As to the parachute, the Cirrus actually has a fairly poor safety record, and the parachute has registered very few "saves." There have been accidents where it could have saved the occupants but wasn't used. From what I have seen it is not much of a safety enhancement in practice; it may make some passengers feel better, however. I am not much attracted by it; my next plane will be a Mooney, not a Cirrus. I believe that the Mooney actually has a better safety record; I know it is about the best for retractibles.

Mooney are the best around, but common, you can expect that lycoming to run forever.
And they are very serious at safety in Ciruss, they even have nonretractable gear, so the sunday pilot does not forget it.
but keep in mind that a lot of ciruss accidents were totally preventable (like pulling parachute in clouds9
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5731
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:50 pm

Quoting swiftski (Reply 36):
This data does not include the Norway pull, so revised data would be: 21 Pulls, 18 Successful, 39 Survivors. Poor safety record? I don't think so.

You are only looking at accidents where the parachute was deployed. There have been far more accidents where the parachute was not deployed, and the overall safety record is worse than most fixed gear singles. That was what I was looking at. A C-172 has a much better overall safety record. I am completely at a loss why this is so, as I am sure the people at Cirrus are. It is not the fault of the chute; my suspicion is that the Cirrus is different enough from other singles that too many people fly it that really don't know what they are doing, and the chute gives them a false sense of security. This is not the fault of either the plane or the chute, but it is there.

[Edited 2010-06-06 15:53:24]
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 38):
There have been far more accidents where the parachute was not deployed, and the overall safety record is worse than most fixed gear singles. That was what I was looking at. A C-172 has a much better overall safety record. I am completely at a loss why this is so, as I am sure the people at Cirrus are.

Not a fair comparison, IMO. One is a 115 knot tops, 4 seat, fixed gear, primarily used for training plane, while the other is a 200+ knot, 4 seat, high performance traveling airplane. If you want to compare safety, you've got to use similar airplanes. Comparing drastically different types of planes in stats could show that any and all plane is unsafe.

That said, I believe a good bit of the problems with Cirrus's deal with the people they market to (which includes marketing of said BRS system), and their aeronautical knowledge. People are flying planes they probably shouldn't be in.

-DiamondFlyer

[Edited 2010-06-06 16:37:15]
From my cold, dead hands
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:06 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 39):

Not a fair comparison, IMO. One is a 115 knot tops, 4 seat, fixed gear, primarily used for training plane, while the other is a 200+ knot, 4 seat, high performance traveling airplane.

  

It might be a fixed gear, but in terms of performance and skill required, the SR22 is closer to a lot of high-end retracts than a 172. The only fixed gear family that is similar would be the Cessna 350/400 and some experimentals (which are hard to compare for other reasons).

As for the chute--I'd personally rather have the extra useful load, but there are situations where it comes in handy. Night IFR over rough terrain in a single engine airplane--I can understand wanting another option.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:13 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 38):
You are only looking at accidents where the parachute was deployed. There have been far more accidents where the parachute was not deployed, and the overall safety record is worse than most fixed gear singles

That's because you said:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
As to the parachute, the Cirrus actually has a fairly poor safety record

So it looked very much like you were referencing the safety record of the parachute.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:30 am

Look C-172 /152 is probably the easiest plane to fly. Cirrus requires difference training. I would much rather crashland a cessna than cirrus. i think Columbia 400 is better than cirrus
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5731
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:40 am

Quoting swiftski (Reply 41):

That's because you said:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
As to the parachute, the Cirrus actually has a fairly poor safety record

So it looked very much like you were referencing the safety record of the parachute.

OK, sorry about that. I was not very clear. As to the difference between the 172 and the Cirrus, I totally agree that they are very different planes, and the difference in safety is mostly because of pilot, not plane issues. I have not read of any Cirrus crashes that were the fault of the plane, other than it is a high-performance plane. My point is that I think Cirrus thought that the parachute would make it as safe as a 172, but that hasn't proved to be the case. But it is not the fault of Cirrus or the parachute.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:14 am

Why are some people in the field that are so against parachutes? Is someone pressing you to use them or something. Am quitting this discussion
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:49 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 43):
My point is that I think Cirrus thought that the parachute would make it as safe as a 172, but that hasn't proved to be the case.

My Cirrus training told me that the parachute was required to get the aircraft certified, as it is NOT certified for spin recovery.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5731
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Quoting swiftski (Reply 45):
My Cirrus training told me that the parachute was required to get the aircraft certified, as it is NOT certified for spin recovery.

I suspect that Cirrus had already decided to put the parachute in, and since they had it they did not have to bother demonstrating spin recovery. I doubt they added it because they could not make it recover from spins.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
alwaysontherun
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 44):
Why are some people in the field that are so against parachutes? Is someone pressing you to use them or something. Am quitting this discussion

Huh?????????

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 37):
Obviously you are not a gentlemen

Huh????????

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 34):

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 9):
My intention when I started this thread was to get a debate going on if this system is a good idea or not.

Please stick to the topic or start a separate thread.

Fair enough, and as an owner of a small LSA (or Ultra Light if you like) I can honestly say that I would not spend that money on a chute.
I feel quite comfortable on my routing combined with the gliding capabilities of my teeny-weeny aircraft.
Please don´t take this the wrong way, I am not overestimating my flying skills here. Far from, I´m as green as grass.
But during my training we practiced "engine out´s" and finding emergency landing areas at unexpected times etc, and I am quite happy flying and not having anything "to fall" back on.

My maintenance is up to scratch, my routing is restricted and if I were to be involved in a mid-air or anything catastrophic then it must have been my time………..or my passenger´s.

A chute is not going to save that fatal day anyway.


Cheers,

###I´m always on the Run"###
"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:47 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 42):
Cirrus requires difference training. I would much rather crashland a cessna than cirrus. i think Columbia 400 is better than cirrus

There is no training required legally, to fly a Cirrus, other than a high performance endorsement, if the pilot doesn't hold one. That said, many insurance companies require the CSIP training, but that isn't (and will likely never be) an FAA requirement. That said, I would agree the Cessna 400 Corvallis is a better looking airplane.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 44):
Why are some people in the field that are so against parachutes? Is someone pressing you to use them or something. Am quitting this discussion

Why are you so against us being against the parachute? Look, we aren't saying its an unsafe feature, but rather one that we'd rather not have. Sure, its neat, but its practicality is very low, and more often than not, the situations its used in could be non-fatal without using the system.

Quoting swiftski (Reply 45):
My Cirrus training told me that the parachute was required to get the aircraft certified, as it is NOT certified for spin recovery.

Correct, on part. It can recover from spins, from what I've seen and been told by various pilot. But the parachute is required for certification, which is why every 10 years, you have to go drop $10,000 to get the thing repacked. $10,000 will buy me a lot of fuel for a similar airplane, while it gets you nowhere for the Cirrus.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:56 pm

OK

So you thrust your mechanic completely, that he will maintain your 40 years old cessna that spent most of time outside?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: retiredmx, Woodreau and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos