Another Day, Another Cirrus Parachute Save

She sounded very calm on the ATC recording. I wouldn't pin her as someone who pulled it in a panic. Seems she was trying to put it down in a field at first.

She must of saw she was going to come up short or something.
 
Glad everyone survived!

I get the feeling either the author or the editor for that website doesn't like GA.

In the middle of the article:

"Two weeks ago, seven people were killed when a private plane crashed as it attempted to take off at Hanscom Field in Bedford.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said data from that flight's recorder shows the plane never lifted off the ground before it plunged into a ravine and burst into flames."

SQUIRREL!
 
Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a parachute you can use.
 
"She's a good pilot though…landing it like that. Safely you know."

I don't know about that.. Anybody can pull a handle.
 
alexgeo said:
"She's a good pilot though…landing it like that. Safely you know."

I don't know about that.. Anybody can pull a handle.
Click to expand...



Probably takes a good bit of discipline to pull the chute instead of attempting to land engine out.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a parachute you can use.
Click to expand...

This attitude, pride in one's skills, sounds commendable, but actually it is part of a problem that costs lives. When you're faced with having to land off-field.

Much of the training for Cirrus pilots over the last few years has centered on simply pulling the chute instead of attempting an emergency landing. Forget the idea of pride in one's skills. Forget what the plane is worth. As long as you are > 500' AGL, just pull the chute instead of landing off-field. It greatly reduces your risk of death or serious injury.

It's a new way of thinking that does not come easily to many, partly because primary training still emphasizes landing off-field. But it's a way that saves lives.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a parachute you can use.
Click to expand...

1910: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a seat belt you can use."

1920: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a personal parachute you can use."

1950: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have an ejection seat you can use."

Ron Wanttaja
 
They live

Insurance owns the plane

Case closed




With that said, I don't think the interview comments were helpful for the GA image. People will never board an aircraft without BRS if this keeps up.
 
There was a recent CT off airport landing on a "perfect" soccer field.

Even at LSA speeds, it hit an irregularity and flipped. The occupants were very fortunate to have escaped injury or worse. The egg-shaped "cage" design of the CT certainly helped as well.

There are photos of a Cirrus that put down on a near perfect canal west of Miami. The photos show that what looked perfect from the air was quite gnarly up close.

Admittedly, both of these played out successfully. Sadly, many others have not.

I spun in in a Cirrus simulator. In spite of training, under even the simulated stress of the simulator, I totally forgot the chute. It opened my eyes about how it happens. Like military pilots, the reflex to at least consider the chute up front does have to be trained in - the Law of Primacy will have many pilots reverting to their earlier training - and sometimes dying because if it.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a parachute you can use.
Click to expand...

We need to have a monthly poll to vote on dumbest posts! :goofy:

Hmmm, around here maybe daily would be more appropriate...especially considering some of mine!

:goofy:
 
No airmanship whatsoever. If it was me and I lost my engine in a crowded suburb unable to make the runway with the only option a small wooded field, I would have knife-edged it in-between the tree tops then snap-rolled it wings level right in between two tree trunks right at stall speed. I'm pretty sure shearing off the wet wings in this scenario wouldn't cause a fire in a Cirrus and it would provide all the energy dissipation I needed right before I hit the tree in front of me. Yeah that's what I'd do. No need for the stupid chute. That pilot ought to have her ticket revoked walking out of that field all smug and safe like that.

People the Chute works. Particularly in a Cirrus with its high stalls speed and unique design tradeoffs that allow for a safer chute landing at the expense of a more risky off-field landing. Does it save pilots that would have died of stupidity otherwise? Yes. Does it save pilots that if they were more proficient would have survived anyway? Yes. Does it save pilots who would have died no matter how proficient? Yes. Does it cause pilots to fly in conditions they have no business flying in because they think the chute will save them. Sadly I think the answer to this is yes as well but unless you feel the death penalty is always appropriate for pilot error, you have to agree BRS saves lives and works.
 
Mike5250 said:
Probably takes a good bit of discipline to pull the chute instead of attempting to land engine out.
Click to expand...

This is a lot truer than most understand. There is a full motion simulator north of Atlanta. The simulator instructors say that when first placed in an unrecoverable scenario that pilots ride the plane down rather than pulling the chute. Even when inverted and out of control they seem to forget to pull.
 
Wrong wrong wrong NoHeat! The Cirrus safety program is one of the most pilot skills-focused programs EVER. Only someone who hasn't gone through the program or is completely removed from it would say that.

The Cirrus training program focuses very little on the parachute. Instead, it focuses on a set of PTS's completely unrelated to the parachute. FBO's won't let you fly unless you pass it, and it makes most 172 checkout rides look trivial and easy.

The facts: The time spent on parachute deployment is <5% of the total training time. The rest is on operations and flying skills.

We can all have our opinions, but let's do get our facts straight so we can have productive debates.
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a parachute you can use.
Click to expand...

Restated: "I guess the need to land off airport with a statistically unknowable chance of survival goes out the window when you have an option that has to this point provided a 100% chance of survival."
 
alexgeo said:
"She's a good pilot though…landing it like that. Safely you know."

I don't know about that.. Anybody can pull a handle.
Click to expand...

Well by gosh, we have to buck up and prove our mettle, even if it gets us killed!

Anybody can pull a handle on an ejection seat too, are all fighter pilots *******? :rolleyes:
 
wanttaja said:
1910: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a seat belt you can use."

1920: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a personal parachute you can use."

1950: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have an ejection seat you can use."

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Perfect, thank you. :yesnod:
 
wanttaja said:
1910: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when you have a seat belt you can use."

1920: "...when you have a personal parachute you can use."

1950: "...when you have an ejection seat you can use."
Click to expand...

2144: "Yeah, I guess any need for airmanship goes right out the window when we have a time machine."
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Wrong wrong wrong NoHeat! The Cirrus safety program ...
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about. I'm referring to the Cirrus transition training, Cirrus recurrent training, CPPP training, all conducted by Cirrus standardized instructors (CSIPs), and I have been through all of them. They all include an emphasis on pulling the chute above 500' AGL instead of making an off-field landing. Yes, they include other things as well, but in this thread we're talking about the chute.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Wrong wrong wrong NoHeat! The Cirrus safety program is one of the most pilot skills-focused programs EVER. Only someone who hasn't gone through the program or is completely removed from it would say that.

The Cirrus training program focuses very little on the parachute. Instead, it focuses on a set of PTS's completely unrelated to the parachute. FBO's won't let you fly unless you pass it, and it makes most 172 checkout rides look trivial and easy.

The facts: The time spent on parachute deployment is <5% of the total training time. The rest is on operations and flying skills.

We can all have our opinions, but let's do get our facts straight so we can have productive debates.
Click to expand...
Bob, I don't know you from Adam, but you seem to be remarkably well informed and have awfully strong opinions for someone with no connection to Cirrus or BRS. It comes across, to me at least, as a lack objectivity. Chutes have pluses and minuses. Some don't see the pluses, but more don't minuses.
 
She saved herself, the passenger and the airplane looks like it will fly again if the salvage crew doesn't ruin it. I'll bet Lindbergh would have liked the set up when he bailed out at night in the winter time. Rockefeller might have saved himself in a cirrus with a chute.
 
Last edited:
I'll need to head to the other board. There's guaranteed to be another entertaining thread there.
 
NoHeat said:
Not sure what you're talking about. I'm referring to the Cirrus transition training, Cirrus recurrent training, CPPP training, all conducted by Cirrus standardized instructors (CSIPs), and I have been through all of them. They all include an emphasis on pulling the chute above 500' AGL instead of making an off-field landing. Yes, they include other things as well, but in this thread we're talking about the chute.
Click to expand...

I too have been through this training. And in the ones I attended, very little time was spent on the paracute. There's not much to learn. Recently, the training has more strongly on using the chute versus attempting an off-airport landing.

On the recent Cirrus Transition Training, there's only ONE question about the chute: What's the maximum deployment speed...which every pilot should know!

The point is...most of the training (at least all of the one's I've completed) spend the vast majority of time on flying skills and operations.

So to those who say Cirrus "throws" pilot skills out the window, I say That's the pilot's choice. Cirrus emphasizes flying skills at least as much as and probaby more that Piper or Cessna.
 
Lindberg said:
Bob, I don't know you from Adam, but you seem to be remarkably well informed and have awfully strong opinions for someone with no connection to Cirrus or BRS. It comes across, to me at least, as a lack objectivity. Chutes have pluses and minuses. Some don't see the pluses, but more don't minuses.
Click to expand...

Interesting post, Lindberg. I love being called "remarkably well informed"! To your hint at bias? WRONG:

My knowledge of Cirrus (and every other airframe) comes from a passion for flying, not any bias. I do fly Cirrus from time to time, but log most of my time in 182's and Saratoga's.

I am current in 8 aircraft, out of a love for this sport. If you read my past posts, you'll find I have significant reservations about Cirrus.

What I care about is getting the facts out so we can all decide for ourselves.

Hopefully that changes your perception about bias. There's not even a tiny bit of it. If anything, all things considered, my upcoming purchase will probably NOT be a Cirrrus!
 
Last edited:
I assume as these planes age, and more and more chutes are pulled due to maintenance issues hull insurance will be almost impossible to afford.
 
Cirrus - what better way to say you had enough money to buy a twin but got this thing instead. I love to taunt the people with more money than aviation abilities.

Look at the distance from the point of impact to the airport in this google earth photo. You wanna tell me she couldn't make the field ????? Really ????
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    285.8 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
Yes, because when your engine goes out, anyone should be able to land in a wooded area and walk away. :rolleyes:
 
Art VanDelay said:
Cirrus - what better way to say you had enough money to buy a twin but got this thing instead. I love to taunt the people with more money than aviation abilities.

Look at the distance from the point of impact to the airport in this google earth photo. You wanna tell me she couldn't make the field ????? Really ????
Click to expand...

What altitude was she at when the engine quit and...what's glide range at that altitude?

Get that data (I don't know) Then rephrase your question
 
FastEddieB said:
There was a recent CT off airport landing on a "perfect" soccer field.

Even at LSA speeds, it hit an irregularity and flipped. The occupants were very fortunate to have escaped injury or worse. The egg-shaped "cage" design of the CT certainly helped as well.

There are photos of a Cirrus that put down on a near perfect canal west of Miami. The photos show that what looked perfect from the air was quite gnarly up close.

Admittedly, both of these played out successfully. Sadly, many others have not.

I spun in in a Cirrus simulator. In spite of training, under even the simulated stress of the simulator, I totally forgot the chute. It opened my eyes about how it happens. Like military pilots, the reflex to at least consider the chute up front does have to be trained in - the Law of Primacy will have many pilots reverting to their earlier training - and sometimes dying because if it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you say so, it's alright with me.
 
n20junkie said:
I assume as these planes age, and more and more chutes are pulled due to maintenance issues hull insurance will be almost impossible to afford.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies will still prefer to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for new hulls than to pay millions of dollars in liability lawsuits over deaths. As long as the 'chutes keep working, the insurance companies will smile upon the Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Art VanDelay said:
Cirrus - what better way to say you had enough money to buy a twin but got this thing instead. I love to taunt the people with more money than aviation abilities.
Click to expand...

And THAT is the problem with Cirrus. It is not the chute. Not the airplane. It is the marketing.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Cirrus - what better way to say you had enough money to buy a twin but got this thing instead. I love to taunt the people with more money than aviation abilities.

Look at the distance from the point of impact to the airport in this google earth photo. You wanna tell me she couldn't make the field ????? Really ????
Click to expand...

+100..
 
Art VanDelay said:
Cirrus - what better way to say you had enough money to buy a twin but got this thing instead. I love to taunt the people with more money than aviation abilities.

Look at the distance from the point of impact to the airport in this google earth photo. You wanna tell me she couldn't make the field ????? Really ????
Click to expand...
if she was at 1000 or 2000 feet, then no, she probably could not have made the field. I'll take the chute, thank you very much.
 
NoHeat said:
This attitude, pride in one's skills, sounds commendable, but actually it is part of a problem that costs lives. When you're faced with having to land off-field.

Much of the training for Cirrus pilots over the last few years has centered on simply pulling the chute instead of attempting an emergency landing. Forget the idea of pride in one's skills. Forget what the plane is worth. As long as you are > 500' AGL, just pull the chute instead of landing off-field. It greatly reduces your risk of death or serious injury.

It's a new way of thinking that does not come easily to many, partly because primary training still emphasizes landing off-field. But it's a way that saves lives.
Click to expand...
+1. Survival rate with chute deployed in envelope or even slightly out of envelope = 100%. Survival rate without chute = far less. Will take the chute. Art's attitude is dangerous.
 
Fearless Tower said:
And THAT is the problem with Cirrus. It is not the chute. Not the airplane. It is the marketing.
Click to expand...

The operating costs of the Cirrus are a lot less than the operating costs of a twin. Don't see any problem with the marketing.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Look at the distance from the point of impact to the airport in this google earth photo. You wanna tell me she couldn't make the field ????? Really ????
Click to expand...

She said in her emergency call she couldn't make the runway. Everyone on board the plane came out alive. I don't see the problem that is causing you such emotional upset.

As to making the field - looks to be about 15k ft between your two markers, guesstimating using the length of the KBED runways. She was on approach to KBED. Cirrus SR22 seems to have a glide ratio of 9:1 or thereabouts. So she would need to be at least 1700 ft AGL to hit the ground at the marker placed at the end of the runway from the other marker. So do you think she would be 1700 AGL or greater above the parachute landing point, or closer to pattern altitude?

So what did you come up with when you computed the glide range possibilities?
 
What happens when the chute doesn't work? You've got a panicked weekend warrior with no other options.

I mean, most Cirrus drivers are just that..


Edit: I have a good friend who is considered to be one of the best CSIPs in the world. Not only is he a phenomenal pilot, he also makes sure his students can land without the chute.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top