Cirrus chutes down

flyingcheesehead said:
Survive, no - But man, that think puked out ALL its fuel in a heartbeat. Composites tend to shatter in such a situation - A bladder will have plenty of give and may "pop", an aluminum tank will deform and may get breached, but that video, especially the frame before the fire, shows the wet wings just spewing ALL the fuel simultaneously, which is why you have the big explosion. I bet the fire was over quickly.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. It would be interesting to see how different tanks would perform in a similar incident.
 
Glad he made it out alive. Sounds like he did the right think pulling the chute.
 
This is really shocking to me. But, I agree that I think he did the right thing by pulling the chute, although, sadly, this situation could have been prevented.

We as an aviation community need to work on reducing that 75%+ pilot error statistic...
 
ajstoner21 said:
snip...
We as an aviation community need to work on reducing that 75%+ pilot error statistic...
Click to expand...

Really? Suppose that in one year there were 4 total fatal accidents where three were due to pilot error. Then, the next year there were 8 total fatal accidents where 6 were due to mechanical failures and 2 due to pilot error. In the first case the pilot error rate is 75%, and in the second case the pilot error rate is 25%. In which year would you feel better about with the statistics?
 
skidoo said:
Really? Suppose that in one year there were 4 total fatal accidents where three were due to pilot error. Then, the next year there were 8 total fatal accidents where 6 were due to mechanical failures and 2 due to pilot error. In the first case the pilot error rate is 75%, and in the second case the pilot error rate is 25%. In which year would you feel better about with the statistics?
Click to expand...

Yup - I'm plenty happy with the way things are. It tells me that my equipment is reliable and will normally not be the reason to have a problem. If I do something stupid and screw up, it's my fault and I had it coming - but if I'm cruising along and paying attention and a mechanical fault takes me down, that's a whole 'nuther mess to worry about. I want to be able to count on my equipment. I suppose a 90% pilot error rate would be even better - how many road vehicle crashes are caused by "driver error" versus mechanical failure? 99.9%?

We're never going to get there simply because flying is more unforgiving - a flat tire or thrown fan belt are mechanical failures on a vehicle that don't result in a crash, but might in an airplane. We are more prone to bad results from a minor mechanical issue, so we will always be a higher percentage of mechanical-cause crashes than automobiles. Having the pilot as the main cause of crashes simply means we are flying good equipment.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
We're never going to get there simply because flying is more unforgiving - a flat tire or thrown fan belt are mechanical failures on a vehicle that don't result in a crash, but might in an airplane. We are more prone to bad results from a minor mechanical issue, so we will always be a higher percentage of mechanical-cause crashes than automobiles. Having the pilot as the main cause of crashes simply means we are flying good equipment.
Click to expand...


I don't know, people hear a tire pop, stand on the brakes, swerve and roll their vehicles all the time...:dunno::dunno: Never figured it out myself, have had more blow outs than I can count in vehicles from VWs to steer axels on dump trucks and loaded 80,000 pounders and never had it be a big deal, but people manage to get killed from it reasonably frequently.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Survive, no - But man, that think puked out ALL its fuel in a heartbeat. Composites tend to shatter in such a situation - A bladder will have plenty of give and may "pop", an aluminum tank will deform and may get breached, but that video, especially the frame before the fire, shows the wet wings just spewing ALL the fuel simultaneously, which is why you have the big explosion. I bet the fire was over quickly.
Click to expand...

YIKES! Looks like it all dumped in a split second. I would be interested to see a test of other fuel tanks -- I don't know how others would perform, but those Cirrus tanks? Yikes.
 
flyersfan31 said:
YIKES! Looks like it all dumped in a split second. I would be interested to see a test of other fuel tanks -- I don't know how others would perform, but those Cirrus tanks? Yikes.
Click to expand...
I think with those levels of energy about any airplane tank would dump in an instant. Hell the entire airframe became pancake thin upon impact.
 
jesse said:
I think with those levels of energy about any airplane tank would dump in an instant.
Click to expand...

I've got a feeling that we will have to agree to disagree, but I would just say look at the Cirrus record of burning on the ground following non-chute assisted accidents, it's not very good.
 
Last edited:
ChrisS said:
I've got a feeling that we will have to agree to disagree, but I would just say look at the Cirrus record of burning on the ground following non-chute assisted accidents, it's not very good.
Click to expand...

So what are the statistics of Cirrus versus other airplanes for the above scenario?
 
Jim Logajan said:
So what are the statistics of Cirrus versus other airplanes for the above scenario?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea (as you know :thumbsup:) as I said above it would be interesting for tests to be carried out.
 
ChrisS said:
I have absolutely no idea (as you know :thumbsup:) as I said above it would be interesting for tests to be carried out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know how else to interpret "look at the Cirrus record of burning on the ground following non-chute assisted accidents, it's not very good" as anything other than claiming knowledge of said statistic.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Sorry, I don't know how else to interpret "look at the Cirrus record of burning on the ground following non-chute assisted accidents, it's not very good" as anything other than claiming knowledge of said statistic.
Click to expand...

Hardly 'statistics' but search the NTSB database and see the number of Cirrus aircraft 'consumed by fire' post accident. As mentioned above by Henning, burning Cirrus seem to be more common than other types of aircraft, either correctly or incorrectly so.
 
ChrisS said:
Hardly 'statistics' but search the NTSB database and see the number of Cirrus aircraft 'consumed by fire' post accident. As mentioned above by Henning, burning Cirrus seem to be more common than other types of aircraft, either correctly or incorrectly so.
Click to expand...
While that may be true, the video wasn't such a good example since I think any airplane would have come apart like that. Besides, the occupants wouldn't have survived anyway even if there was no fire. It would be interesting, though, to see some test examples of a milder impact.
 
I don't disagree that the Cirrus has a bad problem with burning up.

To expect any other light aircraft's fuel tank to fair much better with that severe of a vertical impact is pretty silly. The whole damn airplane turned into a pancake - it'd be a fatal explosion with instant fuel tank failure of most any GA aircraft.
 
jesse said:
I don't disagree that the Cirrus has a bad problem with burning up.

To expect any other light aircraft's fuel tank to fair much better with that severe of a vertical impact is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

Why?

Having experience in the non-destructive and destructive testing of composite structures I have seen how they fail when a high energy loading is applied in a method that the structures were not designed to withstand. They shatter into thousands of pieces, this can be seen in reality during car racing accidents, for example Formula 1. Aluminum and rubber fails in a much different and less dramatic way. Add to this the Cirrus wet wing compared to a more traditional fuel tank installation, which is somewhat protected by an outside structure and you must expect a differing degree or rate of failure.

As I have said a number of times it would be interesting to see testing on this subject.
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding that the DA40, which is also all-composite, has a much more robust structure in the wing protecting the fuel cells from failure.
 
jesse said:
I think with those levels of energy about any airplane tank would dump in an instant. Hell the entire airframe became pancake thin upon impact.
Click to expand...

Most tanks will be destroyed in some fashion - But metal bends, while composites shatter. The frame between impact and fire on this one shows that the fuel pretty much left the wing instantaneously and was atomized when it all splashed out like that, which is what led to the fire being basically an explosion.
 
SCCutler said:
It is my understanding that the DA40, which is also all-composite, has a much more robust structure in the wing protecting the fuel cells from failure.
Click to expand...

Jeez Spike, sometimes I wonder if you're baiting me. ;)

But I'll take the bait. Gary recently posted a picture of the inside of his wing... Let me see if I can find that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Gary recently posted a picture of the inside of his wing... Let me see if I can find that.
Click to expand...

Here we go:

attachment.php


Dual main wing spars surrounding a metal tank. One heckuva lot more protection than the Cirrus offers.
 
Baiting you?

I think I got this from Dr. Bruce, originally.
 
I live, and have a strip near the area. Although I don't like the auto chute pull, I believe it was the right thing to do.

A pilot lives to fly another day, I can't complain about that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Most tanks will be destroyed in some fashion - But metal bends, while composites shatter. The frame between impact and fire on this one shows that the fuel pretty much left the wing instantaneously and was atomized when it all splashed out like that, which is what led to the fire being basically an explosion.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But the level of vertical energy in that crash would cause instant failure of about any tank in a GA aircraft in a devastating way. You're going to fireball and be absolutely toast in whatever if you hit the ground that hard.

Even if the tank did hold better in another airplane you'd be just as dead.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with Cirrus aircraft burning. I'm saying that there is no evidence IN THAT VIDEO that one can use to support that idea.
 
jesse said:
I understand that. But the level of vertical energy in that crash would cause instant failure of about any tank in a GA aircraft in a devastating way. You're going to fireball and be absolutely toast in whatever if you hit the ground that hard.
Click to expand...

I've seen (I think we have all seen) pictures of high energy impacts by aircraft, if you haven't have a search on the internet. Like the ones of the recent sad crash in Wyoming where a mooney (I think it was a mooney) went into the side of a mountain, there was no explosion or fire just mangled metal.

jesse said:
Even if the tank did hold better in another airplane you'd be just as dead.
Click to expand...

No one here said you wouldn't, what's your point? :dunno:

jesse said:
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with Cirrus aircraft burning. I'm saying that there is no evidence IN THAT VIDEO that one can use to support that idea.
Click to expand...

I personally have never seen such an explosive GA crash before and I found the sight of the fuel bursting out in the way it does quite astonishing. There is nothing conclusive in the video but in my view you have to question the way that the wet wings failed, and for the tenth time now..it would be interesting to see some tests carried out on it. You obviously know the results without any testing, but I'd like to see a test. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
snip..

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with Cirrus aircraft burning. I'm saying that there is no evidence IN THAT VIDEO that one can use to support that idea.
Click to expand...

But, there is evidence on how the wings can shatter. I was thinking how an emergency landing on a highway for example and if the wing hit a post at a speed that wouldn't breech a metal wing, but high enough to shatter the plastic. But, then, I would see the argument that if it was an emergency, the chute would be deployed

So, thinking of another situation, one can imagine how on takeoff, for whatever reason, if one lost control and side-swiped a hangar or post or tree, or other plane resulting in a shattered wing and loss of fuel, that would be a fire hazard. In this case, the chute would not have helped at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top