Cool Cirrus canopy pic

[1969912 0]

Looks like they are already in the life raft, so the wind must be keeping the canopy inflated: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/pilot-uses-airplane-parachute-after-engine-quits-over-bahamas/

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Conundrum 1]

Yeah my bet is the wind. Cirrus makes an incredible aircraft with amazing safety features, especially in the newer models.

[normiss 622]

Damn those Chinese!

[Conundrum 1]

The Chinese buying Cirrus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nothing has really changed and they've provided funding in order to continue moving forward with the Vision Jet.

[normiss 622]

I disagree.
Selling off and/or exporting our economy and it's technology is NOT good.

[Conundrum 1]

Well Cirrus didn't really have a choice. They were out of money. I agree that I wish it would have stayed a U.S. company, but I don't think it would have gone well for much long. Now the Vision project can continue and Cirrus is able to develop new aircraft, features, and technology.

[theplummeter 14]

Fun fact: The Cirrus was designed and built because the Beechcraft Bonanza wasn't leading enough doctors to make bad decisions.

[normiss 622]

Good for China.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

Fun fact: The Cirrus was designed and built because the Beechcraft Bonanza wasn't leading enough doctors to make bad decisions.

As an air traffic controller I love that.

The Cirrus is affordable as planes go.

The Piper Malibu is so expensive they call it "The Plastic Surgeon Killer." Regular docs can't afford one.

[Conundrum 1]

Haha

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Fun fact: The Cirrus was designed and built because the Beechcraft Bonanza wasn't leading enough doctors to make bad decisions.

It's funny because it's true.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[theplummeter 14]

Quote

Quote

Fun fact: The Cirrus was designed and built because the Beechcraft Bonanza wasn't leading enough doctors to make bad decisions.

As an air traffic controller I love that.

The Cirrus is affordable as planes go.

The Piper Malibu is so expensive they call it "The Plastic Surgeon Killer." Regular docs can't afford one.

A few winters ago I was doing an air ambulance flight into Rochester, MN. They had a good forecast, but a low temp dewpoint spread led to fog and a fast moving front brought freezing rain into the area. Visibility was less than one quarter mile with an indefinite ceiling, and I was icing up faster than the plane could shed it. While I was in the hold waiting for any improvement and considering diverting to Lacrosse, WI I got asked to climb 1000 feet for a Cirrus. They wanted to try the ILS while we held. We ended up landing at a nearby airport and the patient got moved by ground.

After roughly an hour wait, I was talking to the medical team and keeping an eye on the weather. Rochester had just come up to minimums so I deiced and decided to move the airplane to Rochester and meet the medics. When I landed the Cirrus was sitting on the ramp, with better than an inch of ice on every front surface, and climbing into the Cirrus (with no deice equipment and having not deiced) were the demo pilot and a surgeon from the Mayo clinic.

I tried to diplomatically suggest delaying or at the very least a glycol bath for the airplane, but the surgeon let me know in his best Larry the Cable Guy voice that they had the parachute, or as he called it a "Git R Done" license.

I can't picture a Cirrus without thinking about that scenario now.

[Conundrum 1]

There is probably a bit of truth to pilots being more reckless because of the safe feeling of the parachute, but it really is a tremendous safety feature and shouldn't be abused or used as an excuse to be careless (obviously). A lot of that mentality has to also do with quality of training.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

I tried to diplomatically suggest delaying or at the very least a glycol bath for the airplane, but the surgeon let me know in his best Larry the Cable Guy voice that they had the parachute, or as he called it a "Git R Done" license.

Wow, a lot of good that chute will do you a lot of good when you spin in from 100' at 100 knots in a departure stall.

When I was young, there were times I felt bulletproof 'cause I had a parachute on.

[theplummeter 14]

Quote

There is probably a bit of truth to pilots being more reckless because of the safe feeling of the parachute, but it really is a tremendous safety feature and shouldn't be abused or used as an excuse to be careless (obviously). A lot of that mentality has to also do with quality of training.

It's an invaluable tool, but idiots keep deploying them when they don't need to (there's a hilarious write up I have somewhere) or using the parachute to justify a bad decision. I think the Cirrus is largely the aviation equivalent of rapid downsizing, or low time jumpers with a camera setup. They are a wonderful airplane, but I think they successfully market to folks with a whole lot more dollars than sense.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

There is probably a bit of truth to pilots being more reckless because of the safe feeling of the parachute, but it really is a tremendous safety feature and shouldn't be abused or used as an excuse to be careless (obviously). A lot of that mentality has to also do with quality of training.

It's an invaluable tool, but idiots keep deploying them when they don't need to (there's a hilarious write up I have somewhere) or using the parachute to justify a bad decision. I think the Cirrus is largely the aviation equivalent of rapid downsizing, or low time jumpers with a camera setup. They are a wonderful airplane, but I think they successfully market to folks with a whole lot more dollars than sense.

Source for said unnecessary deployments and justifications? I'd like to read them.

[theplummeter 14]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is probably a bit of truth to pilots being more reckless because of the safe feeling of the parachute, but it really is a tremendous safety feature and shouldn't be abused or used as an excuse to be careless (obviously). A lot of that mentality has to also do with quality of training.

It's an invaluable tool, but idiots keep deploying them when they don't need to (there's a hilarious write up I have somewhere) or using the parachute to justify a bad decision. I think the Cirrus is largely the aviation equivalent of rapid downsizing, or low time jumpers with a camera setup. They are a wonderful airplane, but I think they successfully market to folks with a whole lot more dollars than sense.

Source for said unnecessary deployments and justifications? I'd like to read them.

COPA forum. At least two individuals have lost control of the aircraft, regained control, and then deployed the chute fearing breakup of the airframe as they had exceed the aircraft's redline. I'll see if I can dig up the posts.

[Conundrum 1]

I'm on COPA, I'll search later. So two instances means that "idiots keep" deploying unnecessarily? That's all you have?

There are idiots flying all types of aircraft, and frankly, I'd rather see an "unnessecary deployment" with a decent touchdown than some idiot plowing into a neighborhood and killing people going 200kts. I mean, who cares? If someone wants to total (insurance wise) their aircraft by deploying the CAPS, let them.

[theplummeter 14]

Here they are through January of last year. Note the number of perfectly functional aircraft vs. the number of actual power failures or airframe problems:

CAPS pull #1, Oct 2002, Lewisville, TX, 1 uninjured; Factors: VFR departure after maintenance, aileron unhinged due maintenance error and airplane became difficult to control, after maneuvering, first parachute deployment by pilot in a certified production airplane; Activation: low altitude, 1,500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: bushes near golf course

***CAPS pull #2, April 2004, Lethbridge, AB, Canada, 4 uninjured Factors: VFR night cruise, loss of control, autopilot-induced stall, night VFR over mountains, SR20 performance Activation: high altitude, deployment upon loss of control; Weather: VMC night; Landing: landed in scree in mountaneous terrain, skidded backwards 1/4-mile, helicopter extraction via parachute risers

***CAPS pull #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1 uninjured Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 700 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees

***CAPS pull #4, Sept 2004, Peters, CA, 2 uninjured Factors: VFR climb, autopilot-induced stall, rolled inverted, attempted recovery; Activation: high altitude, above 10,000 feet, activated CAPS in VMC before entering IMC; Weather: VMC, then IMC under canopy, then VMC; Landing: walnut grove

***CAPS pull #5, Feb 2005, Norden, CA, 1 fatality Factors: severe icing at 16,000' over Sierra mountains, high speed descent well above Vne of 204 knots; Activation: uncertain if intentional activation or due to airframe stress in high speed descent, parachute separated from airframe, located along track to crash site; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: high speed impact in mountainous area

CAPS pull #6, June 2005, Haverstraw, NY, 1 serious injury (compression fracture of vertabrae) Factors: pilot incapacitated from brain seizure, loss of conciousness, awoke and recovered from Vne dive, determined numbness and loss of function in legs;IFR on approach to KHPN, Activation: low altitude, last radar report at 1,600 feet and 190 knots (well above Vpd of 133 knots); Weather: VMC; Landing: water, bay of Hudson River

***CAPS pull #7, Jan 2006, Childersburg, AL, 3 uninjured Factors: severe icing at 9,000 feet, loss of control; Activation: high altitude; Weather: IMC icing; Landing: trees

***CAPS pull #8, Feb 2006, Wagner, SD, 2 uninjured Factors: pilot disorientation in clouds, shortly after takeoff; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: flat, frozen field

***CAPS pull #9, Aug 2006, Indianapolis, IN, 1 fatality, 3 serious injuries (spinal surgery) Factors: IMC, loss of control, stall/spin descent; Activation: low altitude, 528 feet in 100 knot descent, first activation of CAPS by non-pilot, parachute observed not fully deployed; Weather: IMC; Landing: water, pond among residential housing

***CAPS pull #10, Sept 2006, Bull Bay, Jamaica, 4 uninjured Factors: loss of control, VFR cruise, passenger activated when fuel streaming from tank filler openings; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees

CAPS pull #11, Feb 2007, Sydney, Australia, 2 injuries Factors: VFR cruise, engine problems, rocket took unusual trajectory, parachute not extracted due to anomalous rocket trajectory, successful emergency off-airport landing; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees

***CAPS pull #12, Apr 2007, Luna, NM, 1 injured Factors: IMC cruise, climb to avoid weather, loss of airspeed indication, terrain warning in IMC; Activation: low altitude, inverted; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: trees, mountainous terrain

***CAPS pull #13, Aug 2007, Nantucket, MA, 2 injured Factors: VFR in IMC during approach, parachute tangled with tower wires, 1 serious injury, 1 minor injury, 1 unborn child saved; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: tower, flat open terrain

***CAPS pull #14, Oct 2008, Spain, 3 uninjured Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: power line

***CAPS pull #15, Nov 2008, Turriaco, Italy, 1 seriously injured, 3 uninjured Factors: fuel exhaustion and loss of engine power, parachute deployed at low altitude and late in the power-off glide scenario, approximately 400 feet above ground; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees and grass

***CAPS pull #16, Dec 2008, Gouvy, Belgium, 1 minor injured Factors: icing, pilot attempted several outs but was unable to maintain altitude, Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: trees

CAPS pull #17, Dec 2008, Patterson, LA, 1 uninjured Factors: pilot reported mechanical difficulties late at night over coastal marshes; Activation: high altitude; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: canal (water)

***CAPS pull #18, Feb 2009, Deltona, FL, 2 fatalities Factors: instructional flight practicing low-speed maneuvers, witnesses report spinning aircraft; CAPS activation about 200 feet above ground, parachute did not fully deploy; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees

***CAPS pull #19, Mar 2009, Gaithersburg, MC, 1 uninjured Factors: door popped open upon takeoff, pilot reported rain in the cockpit and attempted to manage door but became disoriented; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: residential street

CAPS pull #20, Jun 2009, Mount Airy, NC, 1 uninjured Factors: catastrophic engine failure with oil obscuring windscreen, Activation: high altitude, 6,000 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: level field

***CAPS pull #21, Dec 2009, Hamilton Island, Australia, 1 seriously injured Factors: engine loss of power, misfueled with Jet-A, attempted return to airport; Activation: low altitude, 440 feet above ocean; Weather: VMC; Landing: ocean

CAPS pull #22, Feb 2010, Boulder, CO, 2 fatalities Factors: mid-air collision between Cirrus SR20 and tow-plane with glider in tow; Activation: high altitude, 8,000 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: level field

***CAPS pull #23, May 2010, Sirdal, Norway, 4 uninjured Factors: high-speed descent followed by parachute activation, possibly weather related, Activation: high altitude, 6,000 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: uneven rocky terrain

***CAPS pull #24, 10 July 2010, Hornton, United Kingdom, 2 uninjured Factors: under investigation, possibly weather related, Activation: altitude not yet reported; Weather: IMC; Landing: field surrounded by trees

CAPS pull #25, 16 August 2010, Idabel, OK, 2 uninjured Factors: engine failure, rapid descent, decision to avoid off-airport landing, activated parachute, Activation: low altitude, perhaps 500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: grassy field

***CAPS pull #26, 23 August 2010, Porter, TX, 1 seriously injured Factors: go-around after aborted landing, failed to clear tree obstructions, activated parachute after first impact with a tree, Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees

***CAPS pull #27, 30 September 2010, Mathias, WV, 2 uninjured Factors: loss of control in turbulence while on approach in stormy weather, Activation: low altitude, perhaps 500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: grassy field

CAPS pull #28, 15 December 2010, Nacogdoches, TX, 1 uninjured Factors: loss of engine power, decision to avoid off-airport landing, activated parachute, Activation: unknown; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: residential area

CAPS pull #29, 27 January 2011, Cross City, FL, 1 uninjured Factors: loss of engine power, decision to avoid off-airport landing, activated parachute, Activation: unknown; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: recently logged forest

***CAPS pull #30, 30 January 2011, Kiowa, CO, 1 uninjured Factors: unknown, activated parachute, Activation: unknown; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: field

[Conundrum 1]

So what you're saying is that there have been 30 parachute deployments; all of which involved loss of control and/or mechanical failure and they were unnecessary? Come on man. At least try to come up with some compelling evidence.

Pilots with poor decision making skills have been killing themselves since the dawn of aviation. Cirrus has done a tremendous job with their training programs and support for the pilots and instructors. I really don't see a problem with having a tool in the airplane that could become useful over uneven terrain at night. Personally, I would much prefer to impact terrain vertically at 17 knots than horizontally at 60 knots (or faster) It's a tool; not an excuse to do dumb shit.

[theplummeter 14]

Quote

So what you're saying is that there have been 30 parachute deployments; all of which involved loss of control and/or mechanical failure and they were unnecessary? Come on man. At least try to come up with some compelling evidence.

Pilots with poor decision making skills have been killing themselves since the dawn of aviation. Cirrus has done a tremendous job with their training programs and support for the pilots and instructors. I really don't see a problem with having a tool in the airplane that could become useful over uneven terrain at night. Personally, I would much prefer to impact terrain vertically at 17 knots than horizontally at 60 knots (or faster) It's a tool; not an excuse to do dumb shit.

I absolutely agree that it's a tool, and not an excuse to do dumb shit. The Cirrus is an excellent airframe. The CAPS system is a wonderful safety feature. Shitty pilots will purchase this aircraft and fly it beyond it's limits solely based on having the parachute. According to COPA, the fatal accident rate for Cirrus is 1.63 and 1.3 for the (comparable GA) fleet. One could argue that CAPS has convinced so many Cirrus pilots that they don't need to make good decisions or train properly, that it is actually causing more fatalities than those it stops.

[aphid 0]

Some information for first-responders regarding aircraft equipped with ballistic recovery systems, including links to some FAA info specifically for first-responders:

Quote

Approximately 15 minutes after impact, there was an explosion as the rocket from the CAPS ignited from the heat of the fire. Still partially tethered to the airframe by stainless steel cables, the rocket ricocheted across the roof before breaking free of the cables and landing in the street approximately 165 ft from the crash site.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp185-3-2011-pre-flight-6142.htm#ballistic