Cirrus Down Near Houston

Looks like the chute did its job. Something to be said about having a chute available.
 
I want a BRS.

Check that. I want an affordable BRS.

Glad this guy had a second chance.
 
What has to happen for them to make these things available to more aircraft?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
What has to happen for them to make these things available to more aircraft?
Click to expand...

Get the FAA out of the business completely. Look no further than EXP. Make the mfgs compete for a retrofit solution.

30 years ago, they almost, started, just begun, with some trepidation to make sense on the rules on retrofitting shoulder harnesses. Back then, you could install harnesses on almost any airplane with a simple logbook entry and a diagram. Heck, you could take used harness out of a car and install it in workmanlike manner and it would get the nod of approval. The FAA recognized that any harness was better than no harness.

That was then, when the FAA cared about saving lives. Things are different now. Look at the latest 'change' to the ADS-B mishigoss. Sleep Apnea, whatever. It's not about saving lives anymore. Power, control, authority.
 
I would hope the FAA would be more pro active than re active,when it comes to safety innovations. They should cut some of the red tape ,on approving things like emergency chutes.
 
Cue all the "pros" talking about how the pilot should have just landed the plane without pulling the chute.
 
Another one? Or does this not count since it was a BRS save

Guys....stop it....
 
frfly172 said:
I would hope the FAA would be more pro active than re active,when it comes to safety innovations. They should cut some of the red tape ,on approving things like emergency chutes.
Click to expand...

The FAA could care less whether GA succeeds or fails. It's OUR job to put the FAA in it's place and get them out of our way.

I'm glad everyone is ok!
 
docmirror said:
Get the FAA out of the business completely. Look no further than EXP. Make the mfgs compete for a retrofit solution.

30 years ago, they almost, started, just begun, with some trepidation to make sense on the rules on retrofitting shoulder harnesses. Back then, you could install harnesses on almost any airplane with a simple logbook entry and a diagram. Heck, you could take used harness out of a car and install it in workmanlike manner and it would get the nod of approval. The FAA recognized that any harness was better than no harness.

That was then, when the FAA cared about saving lives. Things are different now. Look at the latest 'change' to the ADS-B mishigoss. Sleep Apnea, whatever. It's not about saving lives anymore. Power, control, authority.
Click to expand...

Sooooooooooooo True....:redface::redface::redface:
 
I cannot even imagine what the state of aviation safety would be if there was no FAA. I do know that while I hate overregulation, no regulations would be disastrous. Finding the right balance is not an easy task.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I cannot even imagine what the state of aviation safety would be if there was no FAA. I do know that while I hate overregulation, no regulations would be disastrous. Finding the right balance is not an easy task.
Click to expand...

who recommended no FAA in this thread? Or are you making a strawman, so you can effectively burn it down?
 
docmirror said:
30 years ago, they almost, started, just begun, with some trepidation to make sense on the rules on retrofitting shoulder harnesses. Back then, you could install harnesses on almost any airplane with a simple logbook entry and a diagram. Heck, you could take used harness out of a car and install it in workmanlike manner and it would get the nod of approval. The FAA recognized that any harness was better than no harness.
Click to expand...
That might be true for a shoulder harness but not for a parachute. You would want your odds to be very good that it would work properly before making the decision to pull. Otherwise you might be better off trying to make the landing yourself, especially if it was a failed engine rather than a control problem.
 
Not a single Cirrus would be flying today if they didn't have one!
 
Not necessarily. It would be interesting to know the reason for pulling the chute though.
 
Everskyward said:
That might be true for a shoulder harness but not for a parachute.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to provide your engineering studies that show a properly rigged and installed parachute landing is worse than no parachute at all.

Let's not forget the "workmanlike manner" qualifier I put in.

Of course, you too may be setting up a strawman that you can knock down.

I'll be waiting for your engineering studies with baited breath.:rolleyes:
 
docmirror said:
I'd like you to provide your engineering studies that show a properly rigged and installed parachute landing is worse than no parachute at all.

Let's not forget the "workmanlike manner" qualifier I put in.

Of course, you too may be setting up a strawman that you can knock down.

I'll be waiting for your engineering studies with baited breath.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your statement was...

any harness was better than no harness.
Click to expand...

I don't need to provide any engineering studies to say that falling under a failed parachute is not better than attempting the landing yourself.
 
Everskyward said:
Your statement was...



I don't need to provide any engineering studies to say that falling under a failed parachute is not better than attempting the landing yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't know, some people are just making shyte up to be combative. I guess it's what you do.

If the industry, in their effort to provide a parachute to GA wants to make a sale, they won't be putting a box of tissue paper in a pillow sack and calling it a BRS.

Having been involved in the design of stuff for sale to a specific market before, there are some things we can take at face value. GA plane owners won't buy a BRS unless it's been tested at least a bit.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. If a harness is installed in a workmanlike manner and was approved by the FAA for install it will do a better job of protecting the people than none at all.

If a parachute is installed in a workmanlike manner and was approved by the FAA for install it will do a better job of protecting the people than none at all.

If you just want to argue a point, at least use a smidge of common sense. I know that's asking a lot.:rolleyes::yes:
 
Everskyward;1826769[B said:
]That might be true for a shoulder harness but not for a parachute. You would want your odds to be very good that it would work properly before making the decision to pull.[/B] Otherwise you might be better off trying to make the landing yourself, especially if it was a failed engine rather than a control problem.
Click to expand...

There are OUTSTANDING quality harnesses out there.. Especially in the racing world....

For instance...

Just look at the final lap at Daytona on Sunday night.... 20 years old driver, put into the catch fence in front of the grandstand at about 200 MPH.. Came to a full stop in the length of your Citataion Sovereign.. or less...

Crawled out of the wreckage and waived to the crowd.......

Guys and gals... That is cutting edge stuff...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
 
SbestCFII said:
Not necessarily. It would be interesting to know the reason for pulling the chute though.
Click to expand...

Based on news reports, LiveATC.net and FlightAware, the accident occurred shortly after takeoff from IAH and he'd only climbed to around 1,300 feet (1,200' AGL) before reporting engine problems.

There have been some questionable BRS pulls in Cirrus aircraft, but at first blush this doesn't look like one of them. Combined with a dense urban environment and (likely) very few open areas readily available for an engine-out landing, the decision to pull the 'chute seems like a really good call.
 
N801BH said:
There are OUTSTANDING quality harnesses out there.. Especially in the racing world....

For instance...

Just look at the final lap at Daytona on Sunday night.... 20 years old driver, put into the catch fence in front of the grandstand at about 200 MPH.. Came to a full stop in the length of your Citataion Sovereign.. or less...

Crawled out of the wreckage and waived to the crowd.......

Guys and gals... That is cutting edge stuff...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it somehow, but if not, I certainly wish that video included the part where he "Crawled out of the wreckage and waived to the crowd......."
 
How are they going to defuel and remove that airplane? Will they have to remove the wings? If so, do have to cut the wings off, or can Cirrus wings be removed and reinstalled?

It looks repairable.
 
docmirror said:
I don't know, some people are just making shyte up to be combative. I guess it's what you do.

If the industry, in their effort to provide a parachute to GA wants to make a sale, they won't be putting a box of tissue paper in a pillow sack and calling it a BRS.

Having been involved in the design of stuff for sale to a specific market before, there are some things we can take at face value. GA plane owners won't buy a BRS unless it's been tested at least a bit.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. If a harness is installed in a workmanlike manner and was approved by the FAA for install it will do a better job of protecting the people than none at all.

If a parachute is installed in a workmanlike manner and was approved by the FAA for install it will do a better job of protecting the people than none at all.

If you just want to argue a point, at least use a smidge of common sense. I know that's asking a lot.:rolleyes::yes:
Click to expand...
People need to have more confidence in a parachute than a shoulder harness when they make the decision to use it. It doesn't matter how "workmanlike" the installation is if it fails.

You are correct when saying it doesn't matter much with a shoulder harness, because any chance of it working is better than not having a harness. But people need to have confidence that a parachute will work before they use it. When Cirrus first came out with the parachute there were plenty of people here, on this board, who declared they would not use it because they felt their chances were better by making an emergency landing. Now that there have been many successful saves you don't hear that as much. But if parachutes start failing it will swing back the other way.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
There are OUTSTANDING quality harnesses out there.. Especially in the racing world....
Click to expand...
I wasn't commenting on the quality of shoulder harnesses. If you put one on and it doesn't work it's no worse than having no shoulder harness. But that is not true of parachutes for reasons which would seem obvious.
 
Everskyward said:
When Cirrus first came out with the parachute there were plenty of people here, on this board, who declared they would not use it because they felt their chances were better by making an emergency landing. Now that there have been many successful saves you don't hear that as much.
Click to expand...
O rly?
 
Neal Howard said:
Maybe the forum Cirrus owners/pilots can chime in but IIRC, when you deploy the chute on one, it automatically becomes totalled and the insurance company's plane.
Click to expand...

That is correct. We call it the "ownership transfer lever"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top