Another Cirrus down

Ben Sanford said:
They didn’t do anything wrong, but they are dead. Something like that happens with a chute and it’s survivable.
Click to expand...
I got viciously flamed for saying that on our club's Facebook page when that Piper lost its wing. All these people who have no Cirrus training and have never been in one "it takes the human mind at least 30 seconds to react to an emergency, that's not enough time to pull the chute, if anything, this is an example of time when the chute doesn't help at all!" ... literally had someone then say that "some costs are not worth the lives if may save" implying that basically your life (and that of your passengers) is not worth $15K every 10 years, or about $15/hr of flight time

EdFred said:
So it does happen - and seems to more than with other planes. Now that could be for the same reason the V-tails and doctors didn't mix so well. Generally takes a pretty successful person financially to obtain a Cirrus. Certain personality type tend to be the ones to be that sort of person financially. Mix the two, and that's what you get.
Click to expand...
that says more about the personality traits of different buyer groups than it does of the Cirrus. The guy who bought Casey Anthony's PC12 lost control of the plane because he didn't know how to use the autopilot, crashed and died, we don't blame that on the PC12 though... we blame the pilot. So why blame Cirrus when pilots do stupid things in that plane? People do stupid things all the time, blaming a plane, which is objectively safer* than any other SE GA plane out there currently or prior, is just a straw man in my book

People like different things, and that's cool. But for some reason people who own / fly / like Cirrus seem to get the butt end of a lot of jokes and judgment

*objectively safer, not just because of the chute, but because of a host of other factors (two power busses, two alternators, two batteries, egress hammer (people make fun of that, but I'd be willing to be most pilots don't fly with a hammer in the cockpit), etc.)
 
Oh I agree that is not fault of the plane it is the pilot and that's what I was getting at originally. Those personality types will lean towards buying more expensive aircraft and those personality types have a lot of money and a lot of ego. And those personality types are more represented percentage-wise in Cirrus Aircraft than other aircraft so the occurrences of those sorts of stupid pilot tricks percentage-wise go up.
I think we were speaking past each other.
 
EdFred said:
Unless it's deployed at the wrong moment and the chute gets tangled around the aircraft. But that couldn't ever happen. Never happens in skydiving.

The chute isn't a panacea, but sometimes it seems like people think it is.
Click to expand...

Ok - well I’d rather have it than not have it. I would opt for a regular landing if one exists and chute is a last resort... Parachutes could get tangled but try jumping out of a plane without one.
 
Last edited:
A lot of flying is about risk and managing risk. Flying single engine at night-- even in places that are fairly flat-- is not a risk I choose to accept most of the time. If I had BRS, that would move the needle a long ways towards acceptable risk for me.
 
EdFred said:
Oh I agree that is not fault of the plane it is the pilot and that's what I was getting at originally. Those personality types will lean towards buying more expensive aircraft and those personality types have a lot of money and a lot of ego. And those personality types are more represented percentage-wise in Cirrus Aircraft than other aircraft so the occurrences of those sorts of stupid pilot tricks percentage-wise go up.
I think we were speaking past each other.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the stats from which you make those claims EdFred. I'm not sure you are correct. Part of the initial cirrus spike in deaths was people not pulling the chute when they should have. I think part of the problem is naysayers saying the chute is a problem and dangerous because it causes pilots to do things they shouldn't do. Unfortunately pilots doing things they shouldn't is not due to the chute, there are many instances of stupid pilot tricks in aircraft that do not have chutes. It's just pilots getting in over their heads. Cirrus has done a great job of integrating the chute in to standard operations of the aircraft. A well trained pilot in those aircraft considers the chute first in most unusual incidents. Engine out at 600 agl beyond the runway, first question, should I pull? Yes. Engine out at 3,000 agl, first question, should I pull? Depends, you have some time to consider other options. The point here is that the chute is not a problem, it's not a factor in accidents, it's tool that gives another option in emergencies and can save lives in otherwise hopeless events.
 
PaulS said:
I'd love to see the stats from which you make those claims EdFred. I'm not sure you are correct. Part of the initial cirrus spike in deaths was people not pulling the chute when they should have. I think part of the problem is naysayers saying the chute is a problem and dangerous because it causes pilots to do things they shouldn't do. Unfortunately pilots doing things they shouldn't is not due to the chute, there are many instances of stupid pilot tricks in aircraft that do not have chutes. It's just pilots getting in over their heads. Cirrus has done a great job of integrating the chute in to standard operations of the aircraft. A well trained pilot in those aircraft considers the chute first in most unusual incidents. Engine out at 600 agl beyond the runway, first question, should I pull? Yes. Engine out at 3,000 agl, first question, should I pull? Depends, you have some time to consider other options. The point here is that the chute is not a problem, it's not a factor in accidents, it's tool that gives another option in emergencies and can save lives in otherwise hopeless events.
Click to expand...

When the NTSB starts issuing personality traits in their final reports you'll have the official statistics. It's just the next generation of Bonanza/Doctors. No one gets all bitchy when that's brought up why such backlash from Cirrus owners?
 
EdFred said:
Not a knock on either of you guys, but it sort of agrees with my point of pilots doing things because they have a chute vs not having one.
Click to expand...

So you can make the argument that all planes should have one engine. Because the second engine enables you to expand your mission....

Tim
 
EdFred said:
When the NTSB starts issuing personality traits in their final reports you'll have the official statistics. It's just the next generation of Bonanza/Doctors. No one gets all bitchy when that's brought up why such backlash from Cirrus owners?
Click to expand...

Actually, Bo owners did get upset. It has been a few decades, but based on what other Bo owners have told me. They actually were much worse than the Cirrus owners.

Tim
 
PaulS said:
I'd love to see the stats from which you make those claims EdFred. I'm not sure you are correct. Part of the initial cirrus spike in deaths was people not pulling the chute when they should have. I think part of the problem is naysayers saying the chute is a problem and dangerous because it causes pilots to do things they shouldn't do. Unfortunately pilots doing things they shouldn't is not due to the chute, there are many instances of stupid pilot tricks in aircraft that do not have chutes. It's just pilots getting in over their heads. Cirrus has done a great job of integrating the chute in to standard operations of the aircraft. A well trained pilot in those aircraft considers the chute first in most unusual incidents. Engine out at 600 agl beyond the runway, first question, should I pull? Yes. Engine out at 3,000 agl, first question, should I pull? Depends, you have some time to consider other options. The point here is that the chute is not a problem, it's not a factor in accidents, it's tool that gives another option in emergencies and can save lives in otherwise hopeless events.
Click to expand...

Actually, what was most interesting in the COPA/Cirrus analysis was that it was the high time pilots who switched to Cirrus and were crashing the plane without pulling the chute. So a lot of the training to emphasize the chute option was for older more experienced pilots.

Tim
 
tspear said:
So you can make the argument that all planes should have one engine. Because the second engine enables you to expand your mission....

Tim
Click to expand...

One could. A single engine is more efficient.
 
tspear said:
If efficiency is all you want, you want a single blade prop also.

Tim
Click to expand...

Very true. But I have a Comanche, so I wouldn't be the one to make an efficiency argument. Someone else could though.
 
I fly the cirrus at night. I don't fly the Grumman at night.

That said, I would not do anything that is illegal or that I'm not trained to do in the Cirrus just because it has the parachute. But obviously there is one example of something I will do when I have that option.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I would not do anything that is illegal or that I'm not trained to do in the Cirrus just because it has the parachute.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying every cirrus pilot does. That seems to be what everyone thinks I am saying - or at least as responding as if I was. It's like it's incomprehensible that other Cirrus owners might do stupid things.
 
I had no idea so many people were averse to flying at night in non chute / Cirrus aircraft. I did not have the luxury or training in a Cirrus so my night cross countries were done in your regular old beater Cherokees and Skyhawks. It's definitely higher on the nerve factor, but didn't realize it was a show stopper for many. Makes perfect sense though. Reminds me of the old joke about doing an EO at night "leave your landing light off to conserve power, turn it on at 100' AGL.. if you like what you see leave it on. If you don't, turn it back off" <- or something like that
 
Tantalum said:
I had no idea so many people were averse to flying at night in non chute / Cirrus aircraft. I did not have the luxury or training in a Cirrus so my night cross countries were done in your regular old beater Cherokees and Skyhawks. It's definitely higher on the nerve factor, but didn't realize it was a show stopper for many. Makes perfect sense though. Reminds me of the old joke about doing an EO at night "leave your landing light off to conserve power, turn it on at 100' AGL.. if you like what you see leave it on. If you don't, turn it back off" <- or something like that
Click to expand...

I did all of my training in Old single-engine beaters without parachutes. But after a couple accidents at night that I read about I decided I ought not do that so I haven't flown at night in any other planes for about 2 years
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I haven't flown at night in any other planes for about 2 years
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Given the option not to, or to do it in a safer plane, then why not mitigate that risk. I just have to live with the knowledge that I'm not a real pilot when I'm flying a Cirrus.
 
EdFred said:
When the NTSB starts issuing personality traits in their final reports you'll have the official statistics. It's just the next generation of Bonanza/Doctors. No one gets all bitchy when that's brought up why such backlash from Cirrus owners?
Click to expand...
Because people blame the airplane instead of the owners.

If you were trying to put blame on a subset of owners that have high risk acceptance and deficient skill then you did a poor job of conveying that message.
 
EdFred said:
I'm not saying every cirrus pilot does. That seems to be what everyone thinks I am saying - or at least as responding as if I was. It's like it's incomprehensible that other Cirrus owners might do stupid things.
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth, I don’t have an issue with what you said. I know there have been stupid moves made by Cirrus pilots and there will be more in the future. I’ll even go so far as saying I know a handful that really probably shouldn’t be flying (skill and/or judgement issues). But I also know at least a hundred Cirrus pilots. I don’t have enough facts to conclude whether the type is over-represented with poor pilots. I’ve certainly see or heard of pretty boneheaded moves by pilots of other types.
 
Tantalum said:
implying that basically your life (and that of your passengers) is not worth $15K every 10 years, or about $15/hr of flight time
Click to expand...
If I knew with 100% certainty that if I did not spend that money I would die, sure, I would spend the money. But the reality is we are evaluating risk, not certainty. Would I spend that much to avoid an uncertain but no doubt small risk of catastrophe? That's a much tougher question to answer.
 
Apparently the chute did its job in this one. Scuttlebutt around here is that the injured occupant incurred only minor burns as he was exiting the aircraft. The back injury happened when he fell in a hole nearby.
 
Pilawt said:
Apparently the chute did its job in this one. Scuttlebutt around here is that the injured occupant incurred only minor burns as he was exiting the aircraft. The back injury happened when he fell in a hole nearby.
Click to expand...

Oh, that sucks, survive a plane crash relatively unscathed only to fall in a hole, wasn't that guy's day. Glad they are alive.
 
tspear said:
Read some history. From Wiki:


Tim
Click to expand...
Like I said... Not a fan of the fans.
I guess I forgot the golden rule, "Thou shalt not make jokes at the expense of Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza".

The idea behind the BRS is sound; greatly reduced impact speeds. Ercoupes were designed around the same idea, but were limited by the technology of the day.
 
All airplanes should have ten engines, six parachutes, and ejection seats that toss you out in one of those bouncy ball airbag things like the Mars landers. Wheeeeeee!

And you’re allowed to let the raining debris and fuselage land on whatever you want whenever you decide to go for a bouncy ball ride, and replacement airplanes are free because you can’t be harmed and it saves the insurance company on payouts.

:) :) :)
 
denverpilot said:
All airplanes should have ten engines, six parachutes, and ejection seats that toss you out in one of those bouncy ball airbag things like the Mars landers. Wheeeeeee!

And you’re allowed to let the raining debris and fuselage land on whatever you want whenever you decide to go for a bouncy ball ride, and replacement airplanes are free because you can’t be harmed and it saves the insurance company on payouts.

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

http://justplanesilly.com/post/new-safety-measures-for-ga
 
Tantalum said:
Makes sense. Given the option not to, or to do it in a safer plane, then why not mitigate that risk. I just have to live with the knowledge that I'm not a real pilot when I'm flying a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out that at least one person noticed. ;)
 
SkyDog58 said:
Well, at least he wasn't ran over by the fire truck.
Click to expand...

Don't laugh, I know a girl that happened to in Manhattan, firetruck rushing to the scene, intersection blocked so Mr. Firetruck driver drives up on the sidewalk and runs her over. SMH.
 
PaulS said:
Don't laugh, I know a girl that happened to in Manhattan, firetruck rushing to the scene, intersection blocked so Mr. Firetruck driver drives up on the sidewalk and runs her over. SMH.
Click to expand...

I assumed he was referring to the San Fran crash. It happened there also.
 
timwinters said:
I assumed he was referring to the San Fran crash. It happened there also.
Click to expand...

That I was. Real tragic to survive such a horrific plane crash only to get run over by the fire truck that supposedly is there to rescue folks. :(

PaulS said:
That one, I do remember that now. The girl I was talking about was in the hospital for months and rehab for over a year, she was in her early twenties at the time.
Click to expand...

That is tragic as well.
 
ironnerd said:
Like I said... Not a fan of the fans.
I guess I forgot the golden rule, "Thou shalt not make jokes at the expense of Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza".

The idea behind the BRS is sound; greatly reduced impact speeds. Ercoupes were designed around the same idea, but were limited by the technology of the day.
Click to expand...

If you want to make a joke, make it obvious. e.g. state "joking", change the font color to green. There is a lot of "sub text" which is lost in the text of a forum without the vocal and facial underpinnings.
Otherwise, your statements do not come off as a joke but as snide.

Tim
 
Ben Sanford said:
Think whatever you like. I just see it as a modern innovation that takes risk of the table. Just like in finance why take extra risk for no extra return?

Like the student and instructor in the Piper where the wing came off recently. They didn’t do anything wrong, but they are dead. Something like that happens with a chute and it’s survivable...
Click to expand...

1. It does not take risk off the table. It provides another alternative to deal with the consequences of some of the risks of flying. And the statistics do show it works.

2. However, in the instance you cite, the Embry Riddle Piper Arrow accident,a parachute is unlikely to have made any difference. The wing separated from the rest of the aeroplane at an altitude of ~900 feet AGL.
 
GRG55 said:
1.

2. However, in the instance you cite, the Embry Riddle Piper Arrow accident,a parachute is unlikely to have made any difference. The wing separated from the rest of the aeroplane at an altitude of ~900 feet AGL.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement, 900 feet is plenty of room to pull that chute, and if the training has sunk in, first option is pull the chute, ground spinning at you should trigger that response, if you can get your hands on it and pull it then it should work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top