Another Cirrus down

[pmanton]

Looks like the Chute did it's job. I wonder if the fire started before or after the plane hit the ground.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ar...hwest-of-wickenburg-one-taken-to-the-hospital

 

[unsafervguy]

im no big fan of cirrus, but from the looks of that picture, that terrain is a good example of pull the chute rather than fly it in.

 

[Kelvin]

This should make anyone a fan...

From the article:
The plane was carrying two people when it crashed. One was flown to a Phoenix area hospital, while the other person did not require medical attention.

 

[Clip4]

This should make anyone a fan...

From the article:
The plane was carrying two people when it crashed. One was flown to a Phoenix area hospital, while the other person did not require medical attention.

Parachute notwithstanding, Cirrus is a rather heavy airplane with not much utility.

 

[wayne]

Parachute notwithstanding, Cirrus is a rather heavy airplane with not much utility.

It's amazing they sell any at all.

There are plenty of other options, but they are a very good traveling plane.

 

[Kelvin]

Unless going places fast is what you want...

Parachute notwithstanding, Cirrus is a rather heavy airplane with not much utility.

 

[3393RP]

.

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.

Since obtaining type certificates for the SR-20 (1998) and SR-22 (2000), Cirrus has sold over 6,500 of those models. It stands to reason that these airplanes are being flown more hours than legacy four seat piston aircraft. The commitment to flying them is implicit in their purchase price and numbers sold. There are a bunch of them in the fleet, and I don't think flight schools and private pilots would be plunking down the cash for these premium priced aircraft just to let them sit. If this is true, one would expect more of the type to be involved in incidents of one sort or another.

It seems to me the combination of sheer numbers, the acquisition cost, and the amount of hours flown compared to the rest of the piston aircraft fleet should place more Cirri in the air every day. To check this assertion, I did a completely unscientific examination of four seat single engine aircraft in the air as of this writing as shown on FlightAware, and came up with the following numbers:

Piper: 64

Beechcraft: 34

Cessna: 86

Mooney: 16

Cirrus: 53

The answer: I have no idea how this translates into any useful information.

But while forum noise endlessly debates the utility of an airframe parachute, it's clear that the ratio of "saves" compared to overall airframe losses is getting better. In spite of this, the number of posters who somewhat haughtily deride the parachute as something they don't need and wouldn't use remains about the same. Unsurprisingly, the group of pilots that fly Cirrus aircraft (and a few other supporters) maintain the parachute is a lifesaving tool well worth the cost and added maintenance.

Thus we have the ingredients for that wonder of wonders, the endless internet forum debate.

Carry on.

 

[EdFred]

My only current knock on the Cirrus is that its not a 2600' grass strip plane - which is my most common destination. My initial issue with Cirrus when they first came out was "pull the chute troubleshoot later" was the mantra. They have since changed that which I like. I still maintain that theres a higher % of Cirrus pilots that will push the envelope further than their capabilities because they have a chute than the rest of the cross country pilot population does.

 

[wrbix]

My only current knock on the Cirrus is that its not a 2600' grass strip plane - .

.....or a 2355’ paved strip if attempting a downwind takeoff.....they walked (waded) away.

 

[Clip4]

My only current knock on the Cirrus is that its not a 2600' grass strip plane - which is my most common destination. My initial issue with Cirrus when they first came out was "pull the chute troubleshoot later" was the mantra. They have since changed that which I like. I still maintain that theres a higher % of Cirrus pilots that will push the envelope further than their capabilities because they have a chute than the rest of the cross country pilot population does.

Nor is it a short field airplane on hard surface. The brakes are really under size and the short field approach speed is 77 kias on the SR22.

 

[donjohnston]

My only current knock on the Cirrus is that its not a 2600' grass strip plane - which is my most common destination.

Neither is a Gulfstream or a 747. What's your point?

 

[jkrace]

I read some of the comments on the Cirrus with interest, and thought I’d put in my $.02 after flying SR22Ts for over 900 hours before moving up to a TP. The G5 I had, full fuel, could carry 640 lbs, which I think compares favorably relative to other piston planes. In the upper teens they’re 190ktas (Fiki) planes with the G3 being a bit faster than the G5 due to a little less weight. As for short fields, my g3 and g5 would easily get in and out of 2000’ paved runway. While that’s not Cub short, I don’t know of many paved runways much shorter than that. As for grass runways I usually fly my Cub, but if they’re smooth and cut, I wouldn’t hesitate to land the Cirrus on the grass. If you’re really worried and fly a lot of grass, you could remove the wheel pants. Hope this helps.

 

[EdFred]

Read the whole sentence before responding.

 

[RudyP]

Nor is it a short field airplane on hard surface. The brakes are really under size and the short field approach speed is 77 kias on the SR22.

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.

 

[3393RP]

.

Pfft, there's no way those brakes can stop as well as the slammers on a typical four seater.

.

 

[Clip4]

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

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.

 

[Tantalum]

Nor is it a short field airplane on hard surface

27L at SEE is 2,700 ft and if you land appropriately then you don't need brakes, heck, you may even have to add power to make it to the next taxiway if someone's landing behind. G5.

The POH has you ground roll at under 1,200 ft at 3,600 lbs at sea level and ISA. Or for the "hot and high" people it ground rolls at 1,712 at 7,000 press alt and 50*C (122*F). For a 3,600 lb plane that does over 200 true and hits the flight levels with a 49 inch cabin that's pretty solid.

I still maintain that theres a higher % of Cirrus pilots that will push the envelope further than their capabilities because they have a chute than the rest of the cross country pilot population does.

I don't think that's the case at all. The chute is great for that power out scenario where you have inhospitable terrain under you and to have another tool in your bag, but people don't push further because of that since an engine out in any plane is going to cut your trip short.

If anything it's FIKI and glass that might make you push yourself further.. but that's not unique to Cirrus. How many glass and FIKI planes have gotten themselves in trouble, over relying on Nexrad, etc. I'm sure lots of people having a loss of control in IMC wish they had a red handle to pull

 

[Tantalum]

brake fires that caused serious damage to aircraft

That's also just because of people not being trained right on how to use the differential braking and riding the brakes at 1,700 RPM.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Let’s turn this into the “crustiest brake picture thread”. Mine from this week’s annual (they hide under wheel pants). Man, that’s ugly.

 

[denverpilot]

Parachute notwithstanding, Cirrus is a rather heavy airplane with not much utility.

I remember when you had nothing but good things to say about Cirrus every day. LOL. What happened?

@Tantalum ‘s numbers for landing would make me wonder what was wrong. My numbers are about 300’ in a 10 knot headwind at sea level. STOL is fun.

Did someone mention brakes? Do airplanes usually need those?

I often have to add power to get to the first available exit in a reasonably short time.

 

[Tantalum]

@Tantalum ‘s numbers for landing would make me wonder what was wrong. My numbers are about 300’ in a 10 knot headwind at sea level. STOL is fun.

Ha! Horses for courses. I hate to always make the car analogy, but they're just so easy. F150 <> Miata <> Cayenne <> Tacoma <> Golf <> 911

 

[EminiTrader]

I flew my 2004 SR22 into Cedar Key all the time. All u gotta do is land on the numbers and roll out. I seldom use brakes until below 30KIAS. Lots of mis-information but that’s no surprise.

 

[donjohnston]

Read the whole sentence before responding.

I did.

 

[FastEddieB]

I’m pretty sure that Cedar Key accident was caused by a multiple bird strike on takeoff.

My SR22 was based at an airport with 3,000’ runways, and I aimed to be clear of the runway by its midpoint with minimal braking. And I usually succeeded.

 

[EdFred]

I did.

So your response is because the Cirrus is the perfect bird for a 2600' grass strip with obstructions?

 

[ironnerd]

Cirrus is a nice plane (even though I prefer tin to plastic). My issue with them (and Mooney's and Bonanza's) is mostly their fans. It seems like any time anyone asks "What kind of plane should I get?", we get a long thread of "Cirrus/Mooney/Bonanza is the best! I fly mine from a 300' grass strip at 10,000 msl with full fuel, four people, three large dogs, and all of our bags every day with no problem." I do get it. I tell fishing stories too, but come on guys... it's not the right plane for every job or every pilot. Doesn't anyone think it odd that the Cirrus was designed with a parachute? I mean, at some point in the design process someone said, "This plane really needs a parachute in order to 1) be safe, or 2) compete with really old designs."

Maybe Mooney should redesign their offering to add a parachute and sell more than six(?) planes next year. I don't think you can fit a parachute big enough to slowly bring a Bonanza back to Earth and leave space or payload for fuel or passengers.

 

[EdFred]

I don't think that's the case at all. The chute is great for that power out scenario where you have inhospitable terrain under you and to have another tool in your bag, but people don't push further because of that since an engine out in any plane is going to cut your trip short.

If anything it's FIKI and glass that might make you push yourself further.. but that's not unique to Cirrus. How many glass and FIKI planes have gotten themselves in trouble, over relying on Nexrad, etc. I'm sure lots of people having a loss of control in IMC wish they had a red handle to pull

Oh stupid pilot tricks aren't limited to just one type of plane. A wing leveler will cause some pilot to push further, and as you said so will glass, and FIKI. And maybe the Cirrus chute pull reports are just more publicized, but I know when I read them, I can't help but think. "Would that guy have really tried flying in that if he was in a [any other plane]. I can't see him doing so." Maybe it' a combination of glass AND autopilot AND the chute. But when you have each little thing that helps you get into trouble just a little bit more the get there itis can easily be swayed. "Well, I wouldn't do this is a standard 6 pack plane, but since I have a glass pane... I wouldn't make this trip without an autopilot, but since I have one... I definitely wouldn't do this without a chute, but since I have one..." Adding all those little things add up...

 

[wrbix]

I’m pretty sure that Cedar Key accident was caused by a multiple bird strike on takeoff.
.

Sometimes there are different accounts and explanations given to the FAA. I was there that day - Alberto was just passing in the Gulf, winds were sustained I would estimate 10knots from the south, and he was taking off on runway 05.
Just curious - where was bird strike explanation given?

 

[Ben2k9]

I have a flight design CTLS which has the BRS chute. I’m wrapping up my PPL training and recently had my required night flights. I can say knowing that chute is there is a big source of comfort when flying at night or when over terrain unsuitable for an emergency landings.

 

[EdFred]

I have a flight design CTLS which has the BRS chute. I’m wrapping up my PPL training and recently had my required night flights. I can say knowing that chute is there is a big source of comfort when flying at night or when over terrain unsuitable for an emergency landings.

So would you take certain flights because you have the chute vs. if you didn't have one?

 

[PaulS]

So would you take certain flights because you have the chute vs. if you didn't have one?

I wouldn't, chute doesn't even get considered, but it's sure nice to know there's another option there.

 

[RudyP]

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.

Both of my Cirri have the old Cleveland brakes and I have about 1000 landings on them. No issues and I have never overtemped a sticker. And, like I said, I was based at a 2100 ft runway for 6-7 years so I’d say that’s a pretty good test of whether the airplane and braking system are up to the task. How many Cirrus landings do you have? At what length runways?

As Tantalum mentioned, the real issue for brake overheating and the sticker SB was pilots improperly riding the brakes too much during taxi with lots of power in (it’s poor technique, but with the free catering nose wheel, it makes it super simple for the pilot with lazy feet to stay on center line if you ride the brakes). There definitely have not been a disproportionate number of runway overruns or brake failures and I stay pretty close to this stuff - I have read every cirrus accident/incident report published.

And before you ask why Cirrus upgraded the brakes to the new Berlinger system if the Clelevand brakes were ok, well that’s simple - that’s what Cirrus does. They innovate and improve, every year. They find things they can do a little better and they improve them. Just because they are one of the very few GA companies that actually continuously innovate their product, does not mean there was anything wrong with the previous version*. And in this case the switch to Beringer was primarily for the tubeless tires which are more durable and less prone to flat tires rather than for the brakes but they come as a package.

* note there have been some v1.0 things they did get wrong, eg no access panel for parachute in G1 aircraft but really, the braking system is not one of them.

 

[tspear]

Doesn't anyone think it odd that the Cirrus was designed with a parachute? I mean, at some point in the design process someone said, "This plane really needs a parachute in order to 1) be safe, or 2) compete with really old designs."

Read some history. From Wiki:

In 1985, near the Sauk-Prairie airport shortly after takeoff, Alan was involved in a fatal mid-air collision where his airplane lost a portion of its wing, including half of the aileron. The other plane spun into the ground killing the pilot, but Alan was able to maneuver a landing back on the runway by keeping high airspeed and using full aileron deflection. From surviving this incident, Alan sought to make flying safer—ultimately leading to the brothers' pursuit of implementing a parachute on all their designs starting in the mid-1990s

Tim

 

[tspear]

So would you take certain flights because you have the chute vs. if you didn't have one?

Yes. All the time. For most flights, I view the chute the effective equivalent of a second engine. If you lose an engine in a twin or a Cirrus, you are likely to come down safely without the requirement of being day VMC over an airport.
I fly over east coast mountains, forests and urban areas. None of which are conducive to being able to land without an engine when you cannot see the ground. So for me; at night or low IMC, I want the second engine or the chute; and almost half my hours are at night. I just prefer to fly at night. Without a second engine or a chute, I will limit my exposure to such situations as much as practical, which generally means flying during the day.

(yes I know, statistically the pilot is the largest factor in safety, not the engine)

Tim

 

[Ben2k9]

So would you take certain flights because you have the chute vs. if you didn't have one?

It’s a good question, and I think so. I would not be eager to fly at night without one. Engine goes out and you are against some very bad odds without one at night. When I was training in a 172 before I bought the CTLS, was doing a dual XC and we were over hills with dense forests, no flat landing area in sight. The engine had a hiccup of some sort and it made me contemplate our lack of safe landing locations.

With a wife and 3 young kids, I’ll take every additional safety measure I can get. Pretty sure my next plane will be a Cirrus.

 

[EdFred]

Yes. All the time. For most flights, I view the chute the effective equivalent of a second engine. If you lose an engine in a twin or a Cirrus, you are likely to come down safely without the requirement of being day VMC over an airport.
I fly over east coast mountains, forests and urban areas. None of which are conducive to being able to land without an engine when you cannot see the ground. So for me; at night or low IMC, I want the second engine or the chute; and almost half my hours are at night. I just prefer to fly at night. Without a second engine or a chute, I will limit my exposure to such situations as much as practical, which generally means flying during the day.

(yes I know, statistically the pilot is the largest factor in safety, not the engine)

Tim

It’s a good question, and I think so. I would not be eager to fly at night without one. Engine goes out and you are against some very bad odds without one at night. When I was training in a 172 before I bought the CTLS, was doing a dual XC and we were over hills with dense forests, no flat landing area in sight. The engine had a hiccup of some sort and it made me contemplate our lack of safe landing locations.

With a wife and 3 young kids, I’ll take every additional safety measure I can get. Pretty sure my next plane will be a Cirrus.

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.

 

[Tantalum]

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.

You could make that argument, but that also comes with individual risk tolerances

I think there is an assumption (or stereotype) out there that people with a parachute take on an otherwise unusual or unnecessary risk.. like, "gee, the forecast looks pretty rough with moderate and heavy icing and very high tops, and I've never flown 600 nm in one leg, and it's 10pm and I'm not instrument rated, but I am rich with a Cirrus and a parachute, off I go!"

When in reality, what Ben and tspear describe are the same reasons I like having a chute. Not to push my own envelope, but rather to add a margin of safety. Do I fly at night in a non chute plane, yes. Do I fly over the mountains and dense LA area in a '76 Archer. Yes. But doing the same activities in a Cirrus isn't taking on a new level of risk, rather, it just adds a margin of safety

 

[EdFred]

You could make that argument, but that also comes with individual risk tolerances

I think there is an assumption (or stereotype) out there that people with a parachute take on an otherwise unusual or unnecessary risk.. like, "gee, the forecast looks pretty rough with moderate and heavy icing and very high tops, and I've never flown 600 nm in one leg, and it's 10pm and I'm not instrument rated, but I am rich with a Cirrus and a parachute, off I go!"

When in reality, what Ben and tspear describe are the same reasons I like having a chute. Not to push my own envelope, but rather to add a margin of safety. Do I fly at night in a non chute plane, yes. Do I fly over the mountains and dense LA area in a '76 Archer. Yes. But doing the same activities in a Cirrus isn't taking on a new level of risk, rather, it just adds a margin of safety

Well there was that one crash in Florida (?) a couple years ago where the guy did exactly that. Entered IMC when incapable of handling it There was LiveATC of him completely freaking out in hysterics. If I remember he pulled the chute above the max deploy speed and bought the farm. 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.

 

[Ben2k9]

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.

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.

 

[EdFred]

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.

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.