Another SR22 down after engine failure

So, if we assume the article is correct and the airplane landed 1/8 of a mile from the end of the runway and they appeared to have a good CAPS deployment can anyone answer this question: How high would they have been to get a good deployment? I believe I have read on other threads it is at least 500', is that correct? If so, how far can a SR22 glide from 500'? Could it not glide the 1/8 mile?
 
The video of the wind blowing in the chute, flipping the plane on it's back, was sad . . . How hard is it to separate the chute from the plane after impact? Glad everyone got out first!

It does seem strange to "Pull!" so close to the airport.
 
SkyDog58 said:
... I believe I have read on other threads it is at least 500', is that correct? If so, how far can a SR22 glide from 500'? Could it not glide the 1/8 mile?
Click to expand...

The news report said the winds were not favorable to make it over a ridge line with trees. The pilot attempted to make it, but realized he would not clear the trees on the ridge line between him and the airport.

-NordicDave
 
Hank S said:
The video of the wind blowing in the chute, flipping the plane on [its] back, was sad[.] How hard is it to separate the chute from the plane after impact?
Click to expand...

The CAPS manual and checklist do not seem to mention any way to do that. Cirrus may have figured that the dangers (or simply the design and manufacture cost) of a separation control outweigh the benefits.
 
Dunno if pilots suck or engine failures are just worse then we pretend but I've changed my mind I think the cirrus school of being trigger happy is the right choice overwhelmingly.
 
acrophile said:
The CAPS manual and checklist do not seem to mention any way to do that. Cirrus may have figured that the dangers (or simply the design and manufacture cost) of a separation control outweigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

Really no need for a control, simply a note to stow the deployed chute afterwards in a manner that would prevent what we just saw from happening.
 
Or a pocket knife. (Really sharp)
 
Badger said:
Or a pocket knife. (Really sharp)
Click to expand...

Z-knife "riggers knife/ safety belt cutter" is something that should live in the plane anyway to cut out of seat belts. You can often find them in the end of dead blow safety hammers meant to break out windows.
 
hindsight2020 said:
TCM. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Funny, when I was flight training many of the standard issue trainers were running lycomings, as I got into flying for a living seemed like all the piston pounders (outside from flight school planes) were running conts.

So far I haven't had a issue (knock on wood) with TCMs, in fact my plane had a IO520, plane I flew for work before has a 550, always treated me well.
 
I flew an SR-22 for the first time a few weeks ago, making it only the 4th distinct type aircraft for me. I was surprised to learn that there is no "both" setting for the fuel system, unlike the Cessnas I'm more familiar with. Is that a common design in the general aviation world?
 
DeckardTrinity said:
I flew an SR-22 for the first time a few weeks ago, making it only the 4th distinct type aircraft for me. I was surprised to learn that there is no "both" setting for the fuel system, unlike the Cessnas I'm more familiar with. Is that a common design in the general aviation world?
Click to expand...

I recently started flying a diamond DA40 and was surprised to see the same manual left right or off switch:dunno:
 
DeckardTrinity said:
I flew an SR-22 for the first time a few weeks ago, making it only the 4th distinct type aircraft for me. I was surprised to learn that there is no "both" setting for the fuel system, unlike the Cessnas I'm more familiar with. Is that a common design in the general aviation world?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is more common than not to have individual tank selection only.
 
So, does all of this have anything to do with why insurance companies charge (or at least USED to charge) $9000 per year in premiums for SR22s?
 
oldShar said:
So, does all of this have anything to do with why insurance companies charge (or at least USED to charge) $9000 per year in premiums for SR22s?
Click to expand...

Maybe that on top of the cost of repacks plus I would imagine there is a cirrus premium at maintenance/annual time causing owners to stretch service limits and cut corners for some financial relief?
 
oldShar said:
So, does all of this have anything to do with why insurance companies charge (or at least USED to charge) $9000 per year in premiums for SR22s?
Click to expand...

No, it's because $9000 is 1.8% of the $500,000 insured value. That is actually a good initial rate if you paid that first year.
 
Well the chute worked,glad to see the crew was ok.
 
DeckardTrinity said:
I was surprised to learn that there is no "both" setting for the fuel system, unlike the Cessnas I'm more familiar with. Is that a common design in the general aviation world?
Click to expand...
Usually you only find "both" settings in high-wing airplanes with gravity-feed fuel systems. There are exceptions, but not many.
 
oldShar said:
So, does all of this have anything to do with why insurance companies charge (or at least USED to charge) $9000 per year in premiums for SR22s?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Insurance values are based on pilot experience and hull value. For me, annual premium on 190k hull value, Instrument rating, is nowhere close to that number. Less than 1/3 of what you state in fact.

Chute pull costs are much cheaper than liability and human life costs.

I don't know what costs "used" to be.
 
Henning said:
He just finished a 750nm trip. Me thinks his engine problem was dry tanks.
Click to expand...

Me thinks you are wrong. Before moving the plane they removed about 35 gallons of fuel out of the plane's tanks.
 
PW_Plack said:
In all fairness, many owners of these planes appear to cruise at higher power settings than TCM had in mind for continuous operation, which is tough on engines, especially turbocharged ones.
Click to expand...


Why isn't it just limited then?
 
Phoenix said:
Dunno if pilots suck or engine failures are just worse then we pretend but I've changed my mind I think the cirrus school of being trigger happy is the right choice overwhelmingly.
Click to expand...

Going strictly by the math you are correct. Chances are extremely high you live if you pull the chute. Engine failure and a dubious landing......not so much.
 
denverpilot said:
Why isn't it just limited then?
Click to expand...

The main problems I see wth TCM engines comes from pilots operating them ROP. They have an EFI/FADEC replacement for every engine in production you can buy that takes care of those problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top