Cirrus Chute Repack

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,391
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Got to go up in one over the weekend.
One question. How do they re pack the chutes.

There is no hidden hatch where they get to the chute. It appears that when that thing fires, it breaks through the surface and the cutter lines rip away chunks of the plane as they deploy.

When they repack the chute and replace those cutters, do they break through the plane and rebuild / repaint the plane?

How does it work?
 
On G1 models such as mine, yes. Thay have to cut the top and body work it back. The G2 and up its different. Not sure now. Fast Eddie will probably comment.
 
For a repack the older airplanes have to have a hole cut in the top of the plane,then a body shop has to rebuild the top. The chute is embedded into the body of the aircraft,so that if the chute fires ,the plane is history.
 
Matthew said:
I thought once that thing pops, you needed a new Cirrus?
Click to expand...

That's true.
However every 10 years you have to get the chute and lines repacked / replaced

The only way to get to them appears to be to destroy portions of the body. Right?

Then wouldn't the whole body need to be re "skinned" so to speak and re painted to match?
 
Those cutter lines rin from the top behind the cockpit, down the sides to the lower portion of the body below the front of the wing.

Replacing those seems like it would entail ripping a tear that distance on both sides.
 
I could be wrong but I think in the new ones the cute gets packed behind the luggage compartment. And it's a break a way panel so that it's easier to access.
 
Also, there is a how do they do it episode on how they pack it
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
That's true.
However every 10 years you have to get the chute and lines repacked / replaced

The only way to get to them appears to be to destroy portions of the body. Right?

Then wouldn't the whole body need to be re "skinned" so to speak and re painted to match?
Click to expand...

Ahh, ok. I was thinking worst case.
 
On G1s, it's an expensive hole cut into the airframe.

On newer models, there's a built-in access where the chute is replaced without demolishing the airframe.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Those cutter lines rin from the top behind the cockpit, down the sides to the lower portion of the body below the front of the wing.

Replacing those seems like it would entail ripping a tear that distance on both sides.
Click to expand...


IIRC... They just refresh the rocket motor... Not rehab the entire chute /strap package.....

Also.. A few years back I asked the question that if the chute deploys, is the plane JUNK..... and a few members chimed in that is NOT true and some Cirrus's that came down under the canopy were repaired and are flying again.... I never saw proof of that though..:no:
 
N801BH said:
Also.. A few years back I asked the question that if the chute deploys, is the plane JUNK..... and a few members chimed in that is NOT true and some Cirrus's that came down under the canopy were repaired and are flying again.... I never saw proof of that though..:no:
Click to expand...

There are a handful of Cirrus's that came down under canopy still flying.

For proof, you'll have to invest some time Googling.

Others have made clear only the G1 Cirrus need body work done. But it's a non-structural panel, so a hassle but not a huge deal.

I was at the unveiling of the G2, the first to have access panels. Let me see if I have a photo...
 
FastEddieB said:
There are a handful of Cirrus's that came down under canopy still flying.

For proof, you'll have to invest some time Googling.

Others have made clear only the G1 Cirrus need body work done. But it's a non-structural panel, so a hassle but not a huge deal.

I was at the unveiling of the G2, the first to have access panels. Let me see if I have a photo...
Click to expand...

How about just one, can you point one N*** Cirus that came down under canopy still flying.:no:
 
Google "Cirrus CAPS repaired".

First hit:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety.../723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx
Dec 13, 2013 - CAPS stands for the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System. .... 4 fatalities; Factors: pilot lost control on base turn to final and pulled at low altitude, Activation: almost at ground .... 9 CAPS Planes that Were Repaired and Flew Again.

That link doesn't work, but c'mon - put in a tiny amount of effort!
 
I know the very first use of CAPS "in anger" (as opposed to mere test use) was one that was on a post-MX test flight during which an aileron departed the airframe and the aircraft was deemed by the pilot to be uncontrollable, so he deployed, survived un injured, and the plane was refurbed to fly again.

That was a plane flying out of Addison, and MX was being done at the facility from which I rented at the time. Would be in the 2003 time frame.
 
Perhaps more importantly... The pilots are still flying too.

Sold my 1968 Arrow in August, partnered with a friend last month to buy a 2005 g2 sr22. It's a fantastic airplane. Don't buy into any of the negative hype. Go find one to fly for yourself.
 
I had read all sorts of things about the Cirrus planes good and bad. I flew a friends new to him SR22 for the first time last week I have to say I was impressed. It is a nice flying airplane. If I had the money and my mission was going places that plane would be on my list for sure.

Since my mission is kicking around on nice weather days and going nowhere in particular it doesn't really fit the bill. A partnership in one or being able to rent one for the few times you wanted something like that would be great.
 
A local friend of mine had a G1 that needed a repack while he owned it. So since he wanted to trade it eventually on an SR22 and it becomes a condition of sale/trade usually, he went ahead and had it done. Cost $14K for everything- was down about a month.
 
No Cirrus expert here, but one of the shops at APA was doing one of those cut and repack jobs on one when our airplane was in for annual. Since there is an all Cirrus leaseback school there, I assume they know quite a bit about the beasties.
 
It always makes me cringe when I read an accident report and it says something along this line....'CAPS appeared to deploy on impact.' Or during crash sequence.

And the accident was not during take off or landing.
 
denverpilot said:
No Cirrus expert here, but one of the shops at APA was doing one of those cut and repack jobs on one when our airplane was in for annual. Since there is an all Cirrus leaseback school there, I assume they know quite a bit about the beasties.
Click to expand...


I always thought the rocket motor and chute blew out through the rear window ???

I must be thinking about another plane...:confused::confused::confused:
 
Cirrus is a good airplane, safety record is average, and a current chute repack is required for airworthiness. Under it's Part 23 certification, the chute is required as the Cirrus could not pass the spin recovery requirements, hence the chute was the alternative. Aircraft with which a chute is added under an STC for operator safety are still airworthy without a current repack. Unless there is other damage caused by impact with terrain, the Cirrus is repairable and can fly again after repairs and chute re-installation. VR.. Don
 
Snaproll said:
Under it's Part 23 certification, the chute is required as the Cirrus could not pass the spin recovery requirements, hence the chute was the alternative.
Click to expand...

I believe that part is incorrect.

The Cirrus could have passed spin certification, but they chose to bypass that testing with the chute providing an equivalent level of safety.

And the Cirrus has been spin tested satisfactorily in other countries, so it is possible.
 
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...

That was pretty poor and shortsighted engineering.

As an aside, I mentioned I was at a G2 unveiling where the fix to that shortcoming was on display. The demo plane had a transparent cover over the BRS panel. I thought it was cool, and the clear panel should be offered as an option.

Never was, to my knowledge. But it was cool in the same way that some exotic cars have transparent engine covers. Ferrari here:

5757807218_b3594fb320_m.jpg
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...
Click to expand...

You've never worked on cars for a living, have you?:lol:
 
warthog1984 said:
You've never worked on cars for a living, have you?:lol:
Click to expand...

I have worked on more cars , in fact BUILT more cars then you probably ever driven.....

So, yeah.. I have a pretty good idea how things work..;););)
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...

no, ya can't...but universities train for it every day...and accountants scream about it if the engineer tries to be the least bit practical...
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...


You haven't described it accurately.

You do not "bore a hole" to service the chute in a G1 Cirrus. There is no cutting of structural elements involved.

There is a removable panel, the same one that is knocked out by the rocket in a chute deployment. This panel is flush with the composite body, and the gap between the body and this panel is puttied up and painted over so that you don't see it. So it requires painting when you remove the panel and then replace it. But no "boring" or anything vaguely like that is involved.

Think of it as a house with a door that has been locked, caulked and painted over. If you want to open that house door once per decade, to replace something behind it, you have to replace the caulk and paint afterwards.

The G2 design is an improvement because you can access the chute through an interior access panel, aft of the baggage compartment. To continue the house metaphor, the project is like moving some stuff in the attic to access a trap door in the attic, instead prying open the caulked and painted exterior door.

I would agree that the G1 design is definitely less attractive because repainting that exterior panel adds a couple of thousand dollars to the once-a-decade chute service. But it is not a matter of requiring mechanics to "bore" holes in the fuselage. Not even close.
 
NoHeat said:
You haven't described it accurately.

You do not "bore a hole" to service the chute in a G1 Cirrus. There is no cutting of structural elements involved.

There is a removable panel, the same one that is knocked out by the rocket in a chute deployment. This panel is flush with the composite body, and the gap between the body and this panel is puttied up and painted over so that you don't see it. So it requires painting when you remove the panel and then replace it. But no "boring" or anything vaguely like that is involved.

Think of it as a house with a door that has been locked, caulked and painted over. If you want to open that house door once per decade, to replace something behind it, you have to replace the caulk and paint afterwards.

The G2 design is an improvement because you can access the chute through an interior access panel, aft of the baggage compartment. To continue the house metaphor, the project is like moving some stuff in the attic to access a trap door in the attic, instead prying open the caulked and painted exterior door.

I would agree that the G1 design is definitely less attractive because repainting that exterior panel adds a couple of thousand dollars to the once-a-decade chute service. But it is not a matter of requiring mechanics to "bore" holes in the fuselage. Not even close.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the mistake....

Ron , in post#4 clearly said holes needed to be cut into the fuselage and I assumed it was correct...:redface::redface::redface::redface:
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...

They were all expected to be deployed before they had to be repacked. :D
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...

Planned obsolescence. Make them buy a new one in 10 years.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Planned obsolescence. Make them buy a new one in 10 years.
Click to expand...
They did way better than that, lots of guys were trading up up every model or two as features increased. At this point I would only buy the latest model since they finally put in real fuel tanks.
 
N801BH said:
The question still remains...

Why would degreed and highly paid engineers design a plane that had a parachute system incorporated in it and NOT add specific inspection /service panels to access it for maintenance ,and leave it for future owners /FBO's /mechanics to have to bore holes in the fuselage to perform required work...

Ya just can't make up that kind of stupidity...:nonod::nonod::nonod::no:..:mad2:
Click to expand...


Typical engneer, they'd build the most magnificent building and not design a door for people to get in lol
 
FastEddieB said:
I believe that part is incorrect.

The Cirrus could have passed spin certification, but they chose to bypass that testing with the chute providing an equivalent level of safety.

And the Cirrus has been spin tested satisfactorily in other countries, so it is possible.
Click to expand...

I am not criticizing the Cirrus - Just stating facts.. I deal in facts - not company propaganda or press releases. Yes, a seasoned test pilot can adequately recover from a spin - just not in Part 23's recover in "a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery". I followed the Cirrus development and had conversations with their test pilots over the years, and I do agree it is a good airplane - and the chute was ideal for recovery.
 
Snaproll said:
I am not criticizing the Cirrus - Just stating facts.. I deal in facts - not company propaganda or press releases. Yes, a seasoned test pilot can adequately recover from a spin - just not in Part 23's recover in "a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery". I followed the Cirrus development and had conversations with their test pilots over the years, and I do agree it is a good airplane - and the chute was ideal for recovery.
Click to expand...

How do you even get one to spin? I've gotten pretty aggressive with the SR-22 and no problem. That step in the wing keeps those ailerons working into the stall. I'm sure it could be done, but IMO it would take a very aggressive purposeful effort. It just won't happen accidentally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top