Another CAPS deployment - SR22 New Mexico

3393RP said:
This was probably funny the first three or four thousand times it was posted. Now's it's an annoying regurgitation.
Click to expand...

Same for red handle, oh snap, came from together, hose down your engine, etc. :rolleyes:
 
CC268 said:
I hope...I still always kind of worry on takeoff in my Cherokee...it's not exactly the fastest climber...and there isn't anywhere to land on either end of my home airport except for buildings...I'd be **** out of luck if my engine quit.
Click to expand...

Make a plan anyway - your very best option - and prepare to fly it some day. Maybe you make all your departures at Vx for extra safety margin?

It's all marsh and trees on the takeoff end of my home drome, and I have 2 or 3 spots I've mentally rehearsed for in case of engine failure below 600 AGL. Depending on time of day, you may have a quiet street, or a larger building with a flat-ish roof - also, how high is your 'impossible turn' altitude?
 
whereisrandall said:
Make a plan anyway - your very best option - and prepare to fly it some day. Maybe you make all your departures at Vx for extra safety margin?

It's all marsh and trees on the takeoff end of my home drome, and I have 2 or 3 spots I've mentally rehearsed for in case of engine failure below 600 AGL. Depending on time of day, you may have a quiet street, or a larger building with a flat-ish roof - also, how high is your 'impossible turn' altitude?
Click to expand...

Yea I climb out at Vx (74 mph)...I will have to look at the different options. The other end is desert/one road so that is okay but the other end is industrial buildings and the 101 (major highway)

No way I would do the turn at anything less than 1000 AGL...most instructors have agreed with that in the Cherokee...if I was a better pilot maybe I could do 800 AGL but the Cherokee drops like a rock without power (at least compared to the 172)
 
@CC268 , as long as you have a plan or two in mind, and have your target go-no go altitude set, that and a thorough preflight are about all you can do. I hope it never happens to you.

 
GLMS_NC said:
Cavorter said:
These SR22s sure seem to have a lot of engine issues"
Click to expand...
Do you have stats supporting this?
Click to expand...

My analysis doesn't seem to show it. This weekend, I analyzed Bonanza 36 accidents from 1998 to 2014, to compare to my previous analyses of the Cirrus and the Cessna 210. Here's the results:

Percentage of accidents involving engine failures for any cause:
Cirrus: 16.0%
Cessna 210: 31.6%
Bonanza Model 36: 27.9%

Percentage of accidents involving engine failures excluding Fuel Exhaustion or Starvation:
Cirrus: 13.4%
Cessna 210: 18.1%
Bonanza Model 36: 16.4%

Here's an updated version of a graphic I posted a couple of months back:
cirrus2.jpg

Probably the biggest thing working for Cirrus is, apparently, easy fuel management. Note the "Fuel Exhaustion" and "Fuel Starvation" values.

The plot doesn't include the accidents due to pilot miscontrol (stick-and-rudder errors vs. judgement errors). The Cirrus is higher than either the Cessna 210 or Bonanza 36 (50.2% vs. 34.6% and 37.7%, respectively). However, this can be attributed to relatively less-experienced pilots. The median total time for Cirrus pilot involved in accidents is 727 hours, vs. 1468 for the Cessna 210 pilots and Bonanza 36 pilots.

Ron Wanttaja
 
The "Landing Gear / Brakes" tells the story of the reason retracts aren't found to be plentiful in the rental single world anymore... and the ones that are, have damage histories...
 
denverpilot said:
The "Landing Gear / Brakes" tells the story of the reason retracts aren't found to be plentiful in the rental single world anymore... and the ones that are, have damage histories...
Click to expand...
And the data in the plot includes only mechanical failures. When I was going through the Bonanza accidents, I said to myself, "Geeze, there's a lot of folks messing up with the landing gear." About 6% of all Bonanza 36 accidents involve pilot mis-handling the gear.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
I suppose the Cirrus engine failures, with subsequent chute deployment, just get more press coverage. After all, an airplane coming down on a chute is something you don't see every day, so it's going to grab more local (and sometimes national) news coverage. That's got to skew the perception that Cirrus engines fail more.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I suppose the Cirrus engine failures, with subsequent chute deployment, just get more press coverage. After all, an airplane coming down on a chute is something you don't see every day, so it's going to grab more local (and sometimes national) news coverage. That's got to skew the perception that Cirrus engines fail more.
Click to expand...

That, and any other plane with an engine failure that lands at an airport goes unreported . . . There have Ben several here in the last couple of years.
 
Hank S said:
That, and any other plane with an engine failure that lands at an airport goes unreported . . . There have Ben several here in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
Similarly, though, the same can be said for Cirri that do successful forced landings.

Like I've said before, if your forced landing in a high-performance GA aircraft isn't perfect, there's a 40% chance someone in the airplane is going to die. If it's a Cirrus and you pull the chute, minor injuries at worst, in the vast majority of cases.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top