Another Cirrus down

GRG55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In a cirrus you can pull at 700 and be good to go. It’s a bit lower on some other models I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
In a cirrus you can pull at 700 and be good to go. It’s a bit lower on some other models I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Peter Anderson said:
In a cirrus you can pull at 700 and be good to go. It’s a bit lower on some other models I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

500 feet for a g2 or 3, 600 feet for a g5+.

I know a guy who pulled at around 400 in an engine out in a 22, he and his flight instructor uninjured.
 
PaulS said:
500 feet for a g2 or 3, 600 feet for a g5+.

I know a guy who pulled at around 400 in an engine out in a 22, he and his flight instructor uninjured.
Click to expand...

in a wing separation, the altitude is probably not a factor. the g-forces that are almost instantly put on the airframe would most likely make it impossible to reach the red handle.
 
unsafervguy said:
in a wing separation, the altitude is probably not a factor. the g-forces that are almost instantly put on the airframe would most likely make it impossible to reach the red handle.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but the altitude numbers are advisory, if things go to **** below the number, pull anyway, it might work.
 
PaulS said:
Maybe, maybe not, but the altitude numbers are advisory, if things go to **** below the number, pull anyway, it might work.
Click to expand...

but it may also cause the airframe it hit the ground totally uncontrolled. I have to assume that they talk about that in the training and the pros and cons of that choice. my point is, as far as I know, there has never been a pull for a major airframe failure. I doubt that given the g loading of a wing failure you could ever reach the handle.
 
unsafervguy said:
but it may also cause the airframe it hit the ground totally uncontrolled. I have to assume that they talk about that in the training and the pros and cons of that choice. my point is, as far as I know, there has never been a pull for a major airframe failure. I doubt that given the g loading of a wing failure you could ever reach the handle.
Click to expand...

You can't know that you won't be able to reach the handle if a wing falls off, every situation is different. What you do know, is that in a situation like that, you have the option, if you have a chute and can get to it, of pulling that chute. If you don't have the chute, then the point is moot. As far as hitting the ground uncontrolled by pulling the chute low, the only reason you would do it low is if you determine your odds are better with the chute, even at that low altitude.
 
unsafervguy said:
but it may also cause the airframe it hit the ground totally uncontrolled. I have to assume that they talk about that in the training and the pros and cons of that choice. my point is, as far as I know, there has never been a pull for a major airframe failure. I doubt that given the g loading of a wing failure you could ever reach the handle.
Click to expand...

Did you see the video I posted? The airframe failed in a major way and chute was pulled and the plane came safely down.
 
GRG55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You guys will argue with anything
 
RudyP said:
You're right, much safer to just let the plane hit the ground with a wing missing and not deploy the parachute. It clearly worked out for them.
Click to expand...

typical chutes are the end all attitude. the discussion was about pulling below the envelope, where you are now a test pilot. the question is, do you pull and maybe get a partial deployment and possibly come down in a totally uncontrolled decent or not pull and control the crash? valid question. over a nice flat open area, outside the envelope, you may be better off to fly it in. over nasty rocks or trees, you may be better off with a partial deployment.
 
unsafervguy said:
in a wing separation, the altitude is probably not a factor. the g-forces that are almost instantly put on the airframe would most likely make it impossible to reach the red handle.
Click to expand...

PaulS said:
Maybe, maybe not, but the altitude numbers are advisory, if things go to **** below the number, pull anyway, it might work.
Click to expand...

unsafervguy said:
but it may also cause the airframe it hit the ground totally uncontrolled. I have to assume that they talk about that in the training and the pros and cons of that choice. my point is, as far as I know, there has never been a pull for a major airframe failure. I doubt that given the g loading of a wing failure you could ever reach the handle.
Click to expand...

unsafervguy said:
typical chutes are the end all attitude. the discussion was about pulling below the envelope, where you are now a test pilot. the question is, do you pull and maybe get a partial deployment and possibly come down in a totally uncontrolled decent or not pull and control the crash? valid question. over a nice flat open area, outside the envelope, you may be better off to fly it in. over nasty rocks or trees, you may be better off with a partial deployment.
Click to expand...

You were responding in a chain of back and forth about a wing separation and somehow advocated that a chute pull could lead to "hit the ground totally uncontrolled" as if losing a wing wouldn't lead to "hitting the ground totally uncontrolled"

I'm just quoting you and that's a pretty dumb statement.

Furthermore, I never remotely implied that "chutes are the end all." If anything I implied that when you're spinning wildly into the ground with a wing missing, seconds from certain death and you really have nothing to lose, pulling the chute can't really hurt and it just might save your life.

Do you think this guy should have just ridden it in like a "real pilot"?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I have a tether form the red handle to the rudder pedal.
That way if I am even in a situation where I need to use the rudder (emergency) the chute will deploy.
Click to expand...

Why would you ever use the rudder, you know, except for controls free and correct?
 
What I don’t like about Cirruses is their flight characteristics are not the most benign out there.
 
Last edited:
Ben Sanford said:
What I don’t like about Cirruses is their flights characteristics are not the most benign out there.
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow.
My experience is that it is as benign as any other plane. Flies and lands identical to my Traveler.
Stalls are a non issue (although I have been told by a line guy at my airport it wont recover from one *eyeroll*)
Only difference I have noticed about it and other planes I have flown is you need to think about slowing down a little sooner but other planes I have flown are all 160 hp planes.

What does it do that is different from any other plane?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Not sure I follow.
My experience is that it is as benign as any other plane. Flies and lands identical to my Traveler.
Stalls are a non issue (although I have been told by a line guy at my airport it wont recover from one *eyeroll*)
Only difference I have noticed about it and other planes I have flown is you need to think about slowing down a little sooner but other planes I have flown are all 160 hp planes.

What does it do that is different from any other plane?
Click to expand...


I think you’re wasting your time. Some of these posters are so clueless I question whether or not they even fly.
 
Kelvin said:
Unless going places fast is what you want...
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

I’m not a huge Cirrus fan myself, but they really are pretty capable and useful airplanes. Just have a comparatively higher acquisition cost.
 
3393RP said:
.

The thread title "Another Cirrus Down" makes it sound like crashing Cirri are becoming a ubiquitous event, and by implication questioning the ability of the fleet to operate without random unplanned trips to the earth's surface.
Click to expand...
They just seem to come in bunches. It does seem like there have been more Cirrus crashes in the news the last month. But, next month, it’ll probably be back to Bonanzas falling out of the sky.
 
RudyP said:
I was based at a 2100x40 ft field for years and plenty of people take them in and out of smaller fields (especially in Europe) every day. You just have to fly with precision. No big deal.

I rarely use the brakes but they work just fine.
View attachment 64208
Click to expand...
Exactly. A Cirrus is not a runway hog if you fly it properly.
 
Clip4 said:
Nice photo of the new brake system, most Cirrus aircraft do not have it.

Cirrus Design issued a Service Bulletin on all its aircraft in response to brake fires that caused serious damage to aircraft. The SB called for the installation of color-changing temperature sensors on the brake components for inspection during the preflight. Brake overheating can cause failure of an O-ring that allows brake fluid to leak onto potentially hot parts. If they're hot enough, the brake fluid ignites.

Sorry, just the facts supported by NTSB fire investigations.
Click to expand...
Think about what you just posted.

NTSB reports originate when someone has a problem...often because the didn’t fly it right.

I fly SR22s professionally. You do not need hard braking to land short IF you aren’t trying to race to the touchdown zone.

But people who fly them properly don’t tend to end up as the subjects of NTSB investigations.

The majority of my complaints with Cirrus are just personal annoyances (the ‘why’d the do that’ kind of thing). I have long said that the biggest issue with Cirrus is who they market the airplanes to: rich people who want to go fast and don’t have the time or desire to fly enough to be and remain proficient.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But people who fly them properly don’t tend to end up as the subjects of NTSB investigations.
Click to expand...

This is true of all types.

They’re just here to argue about the chute. Haha.

I still want ejection seats and giant airbags if nine of the ten available engines fail!!!

I’d settle for a chute. :) Or whatever the aircraft has... :) :) :)
 
Fearless Tower said:
Think about what you just posted.

NTSB reports originate when someone has a problem...often because the didn’t fly it right.

I fly SR22s professionally. You do not need hard braking to land short IF you aren’t trying to race to the touchdown zone.

But people who fly them properly don’t tend to end up as the subjects of NTSB investigations.

The majority of my complaints with Cirrus are just personal annoyances (the ‘why’d the do that’ kind of thing). I have long said that the biggest issue with Cirrus is who they market the airplanes to: rich people who want to go fast and don’t have the time or desire to fly enough to be and remain proficient.
Click to expand...

What do you fly for fun?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Beech 18, T6 and a Waco biplane.

In my job I fly SR22s, Malibu’s, Barons, a 421 and Citation.
Click to expand...

Nice, I suspected as much, I'm thinking about an SR 22 and thinking maybe a kitfox or similar in addition. I fly for fun but definitely want proficiency doing it.
 
RudyP said:
Are you bringing any of them to Oshkosh by any chance? Maybe the Beech 18??
Click to expand...
Probably not this year. I wanted to take the T6 for the 80th anniversary event, but I have a Navy Reserve trip to Rota that conflicts right now.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Not sure I follow.
My experience is that it is as benign as any other plane. Flies and lands identical to my Traveler.
Stalls are a non issue (although I have been told by a line guy at my airport it wont recover from one *eyeroll*)
Only difference I have noticed about it and other planes I have flown is you need to think about slowing down a little sooner but other planes I have flown are all 160 hp planes.

What does it do that is different from any other plane?
Click to expand...

I’ve only flown one once so I’m going completely by what I’ve read and heard from a pilot friend with more experience in one. Basically it’s more unforgiving in handling.

- Spring loaded control yoke, reduces tactile feedback.

- Behavior in stalls and ease of entering into a spin, at which point Cirrus says pull chute.

For comparison, I was very interested in a DA40, known for having very benign flight characteristics, being very forgiving in handling, and best safety record. Ultimately I couldn’t fit in that cockpit so I went another direction for now.

Furthermore, all that being said, I still would like to have a Cirrus eventually. Like I said, it’s the one thing about them I didn’t like. I like everything else about them. Building my chops on a cheaper and easier airplane first. Currently a student approaching checkride.
 
Last edited:
RudyP said:
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.
Click to expand...
GA in small single engine aircraft is over represented with poor piloting regardless of type flown.
 
jkrace said:
I think you’re wasting your time. Some of these posters are so clueless I question whether or not they even fly.
Click to expand...

You seem like a nice guy
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Stalls are a non issue...
Click to expand...

True, but somewhere apparently not far beyond the normal envelope, “there be dragons”.

I never got there, but there are just too many stall/spin accidents in Cirrus’s that are horsed around to ignore it entirely.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen a few comments about FIKI....are the new SR22s now legally FIKI? If so, when did that change?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I’ve seen a few comments about FIKI....are the new SR22s now legally FIKI? If so, when did that change?
Click to expand...

It has been an option since 2009 on the SR22 and SR22T. Easiest way to tell is to look at the vertical stab. If there is a TKS panel on there, it is FIKI.

You can see it on mine here:
_DSC0023Catalina20180225PhillipAngert (1).jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    1 MB · Views: 11
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top