Cirrus chute saves another one...

Looks like more damage after the plane hit the ground. You would think they would have a chute release for after the arrival.
 
I keep a razor knife velcroed to my left side below and in front of my panel. If I flew a Cirrus and made it down safely and not on fire, cutting those lines would be a top priority. I would not want my passengers drug along into a house, river, lake or power line.

Glad they walked away!
 
After landing and they got out, probably a nice tailwind came along and lifted it up on a wing tip/nose gear leg, then flipped it over. Once wind got up under the wing and HS to help the chute out, it was all over.
 
Interesting! Brings up a question.... if you were the pilot with an engine failure, and had a couple marginal landing areas in the vicinity, would you deploy the chute or try to land the plane yourself?

Now I haven't flown a cirrus and I'm not familiar with the normal procedures associated with it, but personally I'd probably be more interested in landing the plane rather than deploying the chute. Just me though.
 
I just got an SR-22 this past summer and went through the VFR and IFR transition training. While Cirrus recommends deploying the chute under many different conditions, if there's any possibility of flying the plane to the ground, that's what I'm going to do. I would much rather be in control of my own destiny than in the cords of the chute. If I'm in the soup with a catastrophic engine failure, I'll probably pull the chute, unless I see an opening and a nice field. Just my opinion :)
 
JordanDelaney said:
Interesting! Brings up a question.... if you were the pilot with an engine failure, and had a couple marginal landing areas in the vicinity, would you deploy the chute or try to land the plane yourself?

Now I haven't flown a cirrus and I'm not familiar with the normal procedures associated with it, but personally I'd probably be more interested in landing the plane rather than deploying the chute. Just me though.
Click to expand...

If I am not sure that I can land it safely I'd use he chute. Insurance can take care of the rest.
 
RV10flyer said:
After landing and they got out, probably a nice tailwind came along and lifted it up on a wing tip/nose gear leg, then flipped it over. Once wind got up under the wing and HS to help the chute out, it was all over.
Click to expand...

It's not e very light airplane for the wind to just lift it up. Although the chute might have helped.
 
MachFly said:
It's not e very light airplane for the wind to just lift it up. Although the chute might have helped.
Click to expand...

Sorry, mentioned the "chute being helped" in my second sentence.
 
JordanDelaney said:
Interesting! Brings up a question.... if you were the pilot with an engine failure, and had a couple marginal landing areas in the vicinity, would you deploy the chute or try to land the plane yourself?



Now I haven't flown a cirrus and I'm not familiar with the normal procedures associated with it, but personally I'd probably be more interested in landing the plane rather than deploying the chute. Just me though.
Click to expand...


I'm with you.
 
MachFly said:
It's not e very light airplane for the wind to just lift it up. Although the chute might have helped.
Click to expand...

What amazed me is the chute alone BROKE the power pole in half... Either it was a rotten pole or that chute has a tremendous pulling power...:dunno:
 
N801BH said:
What amazed me is the chute alone BROKE the power pole in half... Either it was a rotten pole or that chute has a tremendous pulling power...:dunno:
Click to expand...

With a "17 mph wind" during descent, it was probably supporting 3000 lbs or so. A typical pole can withstand 2400 lbs of pull near the top when new. It appears winds were out of the South at 1500L, 22G33 mph. Yes, that chute has got some power. Amazed me too.

Reg# 903SR

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N903SR

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/ne...95a-797b-11e3-bed2-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm
Says they deployed chute with engine trouble.

Looks like the plane is registered to a luxury car dealer...
http://www.motorcarsofdenver.com
 
Last edited:
From the news reel:
"It's not clear if the chute was deployed before or after the plane came to the ground."

Although technically and journalistically a correct statement, I think it would be okay to make an assumption based on the normal operation of parachutes. Retractions, corrections and erratum happen tomorrow.
 
Jaybird180 said:
From the news reel:
"It's not clear if the chute was deployed before or after the plane came to the ground."

Although technically and journalistically a correct statement, I think it would be okay to make an assumption based on the normal operation of parachutes. Retractions, corrections and erratum happen tomorrow.
Click to expand...

News is near clear on anything. I'm surprised they clearly identified it as a plane.

Fine, it's possible that the chute was deployed after the "landing," but the odds that the news are wrong are significantly higher than that.
 
MachFly said:
If I am not sure that I can land it safely I'd use he chute. Insurance can take care of the rest.
Click to expand...

Agree! I would have to be pretty sure that I can make a safe landing before I decide not to use the chute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
jlwilson said:
I just got an SR-22 this past summer and went through the VFR and IFR transition training. While Cirrus recommends deploying the chute under many different conditions, if there's any possibility of flying the plane to the ground, that's what I'm going to do. I would much rather be in control of my own destiny than in the cords of the chute. If I'm in the soup with a catastrophic engine failure, I'll probably pull the chute, unless I see an opening and a nice field. Just my opinion :)
Click to expand...

unless it is a perfectely flat field, I would try to land. otherwise, i would not risk cart wheeling and loosing and crashing at approx 70 knots. the chute works pretty well within design parameters. the rest i would leave it to insurance.
 
I owned a Cirrus SR22 from 2003 to 2007.

I purchased it for reasons other than the chute, but came to appreciate it for the increased level of safety it provides.

Early on, on the Cirrus Pilot's website, I opined that a chute pull has its own risk, which it does. You go from pilot to passenger, and are at the whim of the prevailing winds. Easy to envision drifting down into a power station, or into the path of a semi, getting dragged along - that sort of thing.

All those eventualities remain possible. But the CAPS system on the Cirrus has a remarkable success rate - far better than off- airport landings. I don't believe anyone has been killed following a deployment within the CAPS design parameters, and there have been several saves outside of the CAPS envelope.

Unfortunately, many pilots have died NOT pulling the chute, and the Cirrus community is working hard to improve training to reduce those occurences.

This presentation from a few years back is a little long and a little dry, but I think it does a great job of showing the "pro-CAPS" argument:

http://youtu.be/Pc6v-hWCSqc
 
Last edited:
Once you pull the chute is the plane going to be totaled by the insurance company?
 
FastEddieB said:
I opined that a chute pull has its own risk, which it does. You go from pilot to passenger, and are at the whim of the prevailing winds. Easy to envision drifting down into a power station, or into the path of a semi, getting dragged along - that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

That's like saying there are times when wearing your seat belt will kill you in an otherwise survivable crash. And, while that's true, the odds are so minuscule that we still wear our seat belts.

For me, it's not "easy to envision drifting down into a power station, or into the path of a semi" as those types of hazards probably constitute less than 1/100th of 1% of the surface area below.
 
timwinters said:
That's like saying there are times when wearing your seat belt will kill you in an otherwise survivable crash. And, while that's true, the odds are so minuscule that we still wear our seat belts.

For me, it's not "easy to envision drifting down into a power station, or into the path of a semi" as those types of hazards probably constitute less than 1/100th of 1% of the surface area below.
Click to expand...

I thought the rest of my post and my link to Rick Beach's presentation made clear I was 100% in the same camp as you, convinced that the risk/reward ratio heavily favors a timely chute pull most of the time.
 
jlwilson said:
I just got an SR-22 this past summer and went through the VFR and IFR transition training. While Cirrus recommends deploying the chute under many different conditions, if there's any possibility of flying the plane to the ground, that's what I'm going to do. I would much rather be in control of my own destiny than in the cords of the chute. If I'm in the soup with a catastrophic engine failure, I'll probably pull the chute, unless I see an opening and a nice field. Just my opinion :)
Click to expand...

Joyce,

Every time someone pulls the within the envelope everyone walks away. There are a number of off field accidents where a plane flips and and someone dies. I own a SR22 and will pull the chute every time without thought if above 500 feet.

Please join COPA if you have not already, there is a wealth of information there from maintenance to safety of Cirrus flying.

FLy safe.
 
There is a video floating around that is disturbing.
Cirrus clipped a glider tow line.

They pulled the chute but then the plane caught fire.
They were floating to the ground but burning inside.

What a horrible way to go.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
There is a video floating around that is disturbing.
Cirrus clipped a glider tow line.

They pulled the chute but then the plane caught fire.
They were floating to the ground but burning inside.

What a horrible way to go.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There's not a lot of difference in time in the air floating down vs flying down. I think someone did the math and found that descending under canopy actually got you on the ground faster.

Still tragic.

Googling "cirrus midair fire" brings up lots of links.
 
Last edited:
I've never gone off the ground in a glider, but I've landed a glider three times (this doesn't count intentional power cuts).

Not one of those times did I even CONSIDER deploying the BoRiS.

Don't they teach Cirrus pilots about emergency landings?

This reminds me of that guy who put the wings of his plane between the only two trees in acres of gently rolling pasture, to take up the shock of his "crash landing."
 
SoloEqs said:
If you can land it, LAND it.
Click to expand...

This is a terrible idea in a Cirrus unless it's a runway or a runway-like improved field. My SR22 weighs 3,600 lbs at gross and stops flying, assuming I have full flaps and set it down right at stall, around 70mph. I have 3 really skinny tires that can't retract surrounded by fairings that have about 2" of ground clearance. My front nose wheel is tiny with one skinny strut holding it onto the plane. With full fuel, I'm carrying 94.5 gallons of 100LL in a wet wing. As several fatal accidents can attest, taking that much energy into an off field landing with that landing gear often doesn't end well.

In fact, my landing gear is designed to collapse. Why? Because my plane is designed to land under a chute and protect it's passengers. This means the gear collapses to absorb the vertical impact as does the seat which is made out of a honeycomb structure. That's why the survival rate of pulls made within parameters is 100% so far. You can't say the same with the alternative so why try it? The design choices made to make a chute landing survivable may make an off field landing less so.

My DA40 on the other hand stalled at 49 knots, had a 28g cockpit, sealed fuel tanks with steal braided fuel lines, air bags and seats bolted straight into the hull that couldn't move. Even if it came with a chute, I'd consider it a second option. In the Cirrus the chute is plan A.
 
Wingsofglass said:
This is a terrible idea in a Cirrus unless it's a runway or a runway-like improved field. My SR22 weighs 3,600 lbs at gross and stops flying, assuming I have full flaps and set it down right at stall, around 70mph. I have 3 really skinny tires that can't retract surrounded by fairings that have about 2" of ground clearance. My front nose wheel is tiny with one skinny strut holding it onto the plane. With full fuel, I'm carrying 94.5 gallons of 100LL in a wet wing. As several fatal accidents can attest, taking that much energy into an off field landing with that landing gear often doesn't end well.

In fact, my landing gear is designed to collapse. Why? Because my plane is designed to land under a chute and protect it's passengers. This means the gear collapses to absorb the vertical impact as does the seat which is made out of a honeycomb structure. That's why the survival rate of pulls made within parameters is 100% so far. You can't say the same with the alternative so why try it? The design choices made to make a chute landing survivable may make an off field landing less so.

My DA40 on the other hand stalled at 49 knots, had a 28g cockpit, sealed fuel tanks with steal braided fuel lines, air bags and seats bolted straight into the hull that couldn't move. Even if it came with a chute, I'd consider it a second option. In the Cirrus the chute is plan A.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Last edited:
SoloEqs said:
I hadn't realized that the Cirrus was that fragile.

Still, one thing that landing it does that the chute doesn't is that you have the opportunity to pick your crash site.
Click to expand...

You can pick your own "crash site" with the chute. Maneuver to the area over which you want to land and pull the chute. If your concerned about wind drift just glide upwind of your intended landing spot and pull the chute there.

It's not that the Cirrus is fragile, it's just designed to absorb impact from a different direction.
 
SoloEqs said:
Still, one thing that landing it does that the chute doesn't is that you have the opportunity to pick your crash site.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I made the same case early on.

But the data so far indicates that some really, really poor "crash" sites have still resulted in no or minor injuries. The dreaded "dragged in front of a semi on the Interstate" or "frying when descended into to power plant" have yet to materialize, though the risk is admittedly there.

But the far lesser risk seems to be to go CAPS. I trained for power off approaches quite often, so if I had a 2,500' plus runway in gliding range I would head to it and spiral down and land. Otherwise CAPS seems to be the choice most conducive to survival in a Cirrus.

The presentation I linked to makes a pretty strong case for that, I think.
 
dell30rb said:
We're looking at maybe 60-70 chute pulls vs. tens of thousands of glide in off airport landings. Not enough data.
Click to expand...

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

While you wait for perfect data, or some level data you deem statistically significant...

...let's just consider that, in Cirrus airplanes to date...

1) Not a single pilot has died as a result of a CAPS pull within design parameter and...

2) Many have died in situations where CAPS was a viable option but it was not used*.

I think it's rational to run with that data for now, regardless of how limited the data set.


*Including me, when the left wing departed and I fought for control all the way to ground impact, never even considering CAPS until it was too late.
Fortunately, we could reset the simulator after discussing my poor performance. In real life, that's often not an option.
 
FastEddieB said:
*Including me, when the left wing departed and I fought for control all the way to ground impact, never even considering CAPS until it was too late.
Fortunately, we could reset the simulator after discussing my poor performance. In real life, that's often not an option.
Click to expand...

I'd hope that in real life... You would notice a wing departing the airplane. I haven't experienced a structural failure, but I'd imagine it's quite an event.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This was my account:

Last Saturday was the nice little fly-in into Kennesaw, GA.

Part of the “hook” was a chance to try out the SimTrain Cirrus simulator nearby.

...

Scenario 2

At some point in the flight, at about 4,000’, the plane entered what seemed to be a spin. I pushed the stick forward, determined the direction of rotation and pushed opposite rudder. I think I retarded the throttle as well. I seemed to be making some progress (I thought) when someone in the peanut gallery said “chute?”. Seemed like a plan and I reached up for the handle, but it was blocked by the cover. I spent a second or two fumbling with the tiny pull-tab on the cover, and then hit the ground. Yikes.

Turns out the left wing had departed and the “spin” was unrecoverable.

This was a real eye-opener to me. I had wondered why the NY pilots who spun never pulled the chute and was certain I would have. Now I’m not so sure.

Observations:

1) Once the plane started to “spin” the only term I can think of is “task fixation”. I was 100% wrapped up in recovering from the spin. I’ve done hundreds of spins in the past and managed to recover from each and every one, so why not this one?

Warren Zevon (R.I.P.) sang “You’re a whole ‘nother person when you’re scared”. Even in a simulation this was pretty intense and the amount of fixation was remarkable. Kind of like tunnel vision with blinders to any other task.

2) IMHO, having the CAPS cover in place could have fatal consequences. In this case, I don’t care what the POH says (and that means something coming from me!). If the cover is a required placard, maybe it could be Velcro’d to the ceiling next to the handle (I think Mike has the “Pull Procedure” laminated in the handle’s recess). Turns out in my scenario I also had the pin in place - again, I blame this on not having my own checklist which I’m very used to. Still, it shows poor use of the checklist which was provided.

3) I thought Mike R’s “BAM-touch head-grab handle” exercise was cute but a bit over-the-top. I take it back, and will practice it myself in the future.

Similarly, I was impressed when Jeff Seymore briefed the takeoff by showing, on the backup altimeter, the altitude where he would start considering the ‘chute and no longer commit to a straight ahead landing if the engine failed. Again, a good idea which I may incorporate into my own routine.

Anyway, I learned a lot in a very short time (15 minutes?) and plan on going back, next time on my own dime. I figure if I go every other month and shoot at least 3 approaches and do some holds/intercepts, at least I’ll stay current. And I’m sure they have more of these wicked little scenarios I can screw up!
 
FastEddieB said:
2) IMHO, having the CAPS cover in place could have fatal consequences. In this case, I don’t care what the POH says (and that means something coming from me!). If the cover is a required placard, maybe it could be Velcro’d to the ceiling next to the handle (I think Mike has the “Pull Procedure” laminated in the handle’s recess). Turns out in my scenario I also had the pin in place - again, I blame this on not having my own checklist which I’m very used to. Still, it shows poor use of the checklist which was provided.
Click to expand...

Glad you learned something. Glad there was a reset button.

I'd wondered about those covers. Please correct if wrong, but I recall that in G3+ removing the cover is a preflight action whereas pre G3 is as you describe. It would seem to me that the cover could be a explanation as to why some of the fatals didn't pull; cover was in the way and it takes extra time.
 
My basic point is that it seems silly to pop a chute just because of Sudden Airborne Silence Syndrome. There are a lot of pilots (myself included) who have landed with props stopped, solved the problem and flown home. Planes have landed on roads, streets, highways, golf courses, football fields, etc, and had no problem other than the engine failure that put them on the ground in the first place.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Glad you learned something. Glad there was a reset button.

I'd wondered about those covers. Please correct if wrong, but I recall that in G3+ removing the cover is a preflight action whereas pre G3 is as you describe. It would seem to me that the cover could be a explanation as to why some of the fatals didn't pull; cover was in the way and it takes extra time.
Click to expand...

I slide the cover back and use the two front velcro tabs on the two rear posts. This leaves the handle clear and the cover is still where I can easily find it.

Low level pull nothing is in my way. A situation at altitude allows me to review the checklist on the easily found cover, as I descend at best glide to the altitude I plan on making the pull.

I can't imagine that cover stoping your pull, at best it will delay it by a second. Your hand easily pushes throughout the flimsy cover.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top