Cirrus down under chute in NC, right next to house. No injuries.

bikert said:
I do not have a Cirrus, never flown one, but don't understand all the hate.
Click to expand...

I haven't figured it out other than just a macho sort of thing.

If I am over 500 AGL and can't get back to the field, I owe it to my family to yank that handle and live whether or not it means I am less of a pilot.
 
Mark57 said:
Check the NTSB aviation accident database once in a while. You might learn something. Since Dec 1, 2015 there have been 16 fatal accidents, including Cessna, 140, 172, 182, and 208; a Bonanza, a Sierra; Piper 28, 32, and 46; a Rockwell 114; and a few others. Know what's not there? Cirrus.
Click to expand...


....mooney
 
Is the phenomenon of getting in over your head more prevalent in cirrus pilots? I have seen numerous pilot deaths the past several weeks in non cirrus aircraft where the pilots died and most appear to be pilots getting in over their heads.

I have no data to back it up, but I suspect pilots will be overconfident with or without a parachute. Kind of like teenage kids racing cars; they all do it but airbags and better technology save more of them now.
 
tuwood said:
Is the phenomenon of getting in over your head more prevalent in cirrus pilots? I have seen numerous pilot deaths the past several weeks in non cirrus aircraft where the pilots died and most appear to be pilots getting in over their heads.

I have no data to back it up, but I suspect pilots will be overconfident with or without a parachute. Kind of like teenage kids racing cars; they all do it but airbags and better technology save more of them now.
Click to expand...

The only thing I am more likely to do in the Cirrus is worry less at night.
I like flying at night but after thinking through the possibilities after a handful of night XC w/ family on board, I started cutting back on night flying.

I still as a general rule, don't launch after dark but if I find myself out at night now, I have less anxeity about it. That is probably on a small scale some sort of gateway drug toward more risky flights but I can't fathom ever launching in conditions outside my minimums because I have the red handle.

I can't speak for anyone else. I also don't have a lot of that macho / risk taking gene that a lot of people do which I am sure is an even bigger factor.
 
Mark57 said:
Check the NTSB aviation accident database once in a while. You might learn something. Since Dec 1, 2015 there have been 16 fatal accidents, including Cessna, 140, 172, 182, and 208; a Bonanza, a Sierra; Piper 28, 32, and 46; a Rockwell 114; and a few others. Know what's not there? Cirrus.
Click to expand...


Meaningless. You can support any hypothesis you want with only one month's worth of data by choosing a convenient month. It just so happens that December 2015 is convenient for your assertion.

Let's rather talk about the number of accidents last year, compared to flying fleet size and the number of serious injuries/fatalities for each. That would be the ultimate data to draw conclusions from. Even so, probably need to look at multiple years for a more accurate view and to see the trends.
 
bikert said:
Meaningless. You can support any hypothesis you want with only one month's worth of data by choosing a convenient month. It just so happens that December 2015 is convenient for your assertion.

Let's rather talk about the number of accidents last year, compared to flying fleet size and the number of serious injuries/fatalities for each. That would be the ultimate data to draw conclusions from. Even so, probably need to look at multiple years for a more accurate view and to see the trends.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's. So what did you come up with?
 
Real pilots die, the slogan for Cirrus haters. It's sad.
 
Some of you Cirrus haters are ridiculous. Seems to me this guy did exactly what he should have done, which resulted in him and his wife moving on to spend more time with family, friends and each other. Unfortunately most airplanes don't have the same option and if that was you in a non-parachute equiped airplane, I am sure you would have just flown below the approach minimums and pulled off that perfect landing while gliding in engine out on the ILS. (oh, thats right. Nevermind. That could never be you. You are way too good to get into a bad situation ever.) :rolleyes:
 
Cirrus made a great airplane,the chute works. The problem seems some pilots are flying them,in a lackluster manner,counting on the chute,to handle their ,lack of skill.
 
drones kept them from landing. Luckily the registration number was seen by observant people and reported to the FAA. The FAA is now investigating.
 
I always have to click on a cirrus CAPS deployment thread just for the entertainment value of the never ending cirrus debate (never flown one, no dog in that fight). I will say, plenty of places to stop for fuel in the area though if that was the case.
 
JasonM said:
Some of you Cirrus haters are ridiculous. Seems to me this guy did exactly what he should have done, which resulted in him and his wife moving on to spend more time with family, friends and each other. Unfortunately most airplanes don't have the same option and if that was you in a non-parachute equiped airplane, I am sure you would have just flown below the approach minimums and pulled off that perfect landing while gliding in engine out on the ILS. (oh, thats right. Nevermind. That could never be you. You are way too good to get into a bad situation ever.) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


They are STUPID for running out of fuel....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::mad:
 
frfly172 said:
Cirrus made a great airplane,the chute works. The problem seems some pilots are flying them,in a lackluster manner,counting on the chute,to handle their ,lack of skill.
Click to expand...

I still wonder if this is really the case. I don't know of course, but I read about pilots with lack of skill flying all types of planes and doing dumb things (with and without a chute).
I do see where a Cirrus with a glass panel, FIKI, and a chute could make low hour pilots feel more inclined to go when conditions are on the border where a pilot in a plane without those features would more likely stay on the ground. Perhaps that's where the argument holds some water, but I bet a low hour pilot who burned $850k on a similar equipped (non chute plane) would feel every bit as confident in the same conditions.

I do follow these discussions with a ton of interest because I am doing my training in a Cirrus and plan to ultimately purchase one of them. I am a huge fan of CAPS and it's the reason I want one.
I have learned a ton already with these CAPS threads and it's encouraging me to truly work on my pilot skills in addition to having CAPS. I want to be the best and safest pilot I can be in a plane that gives me the most options possible. To me, that's a recipe for success. :)
 
tuwood said:
I still wonder if this is really the case. I don't know of course, but I read about pilots with lack of skill flying all types of planes and doing dumb things (with and without a chute).
I do see where a Cirrus with a glass panel, FIKI, and a chute could make low hour pilots feel more inclined to go when conditions are on the border where a pilot in a plane without those features would more likely stay on the ground. Perhaps that's where the argument holds some water, but I bet a low hour pilot who burned $850k on a similar equipped (non chute plane) would feel every bit as confident in the same conditions.

I do follow these discussions with a ton of interest because I am doing my training in a Cirrus and plan to ultimately purchase one of them. I am a huge fan of CAPS and it's the reason I want one.
I have learned a ton already with these CAPS threads and it's encouraging me to truly work on my pilot skills in addition to having CAPS. I want to be the best and safest pilot I can be in a plane that gives me the most options possible. To me, that's a recipe for success. :)
Click to expand...

You will live to be an old man....:yes::yes:
 
JasonM said:
Some of you Cirrus haters are ridiculous. Seems to me this guy did exactly what he should have done, which resulted in him and his wife moving on to spend more time with family, friends and each other. Unfortunately most airplanes don't have the same option and if that was you in a non-parachute equiped airplane, I am sure you would have just flown below the approach minimums and pulled off that perfect landing while gliding in engine out on the ILS. (oh, thats right. Nevermind. That could never be you. You are way too good to get into a bad situation ever.) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You should go over to the Cirrus board.....everyone is giving the guy high fives over there. :D:goofy:
:rofl:
 
N801BH said:
They are STUPID for running out of fuel....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::mad:
Click to expand...

Yes, but my guess is they would have done the same thing in any type of airplane. The fact they had a chute, IMO, is not why they made a poor fuel decision. It IS why they're alive and not possibly dead.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, but my guess is they would have done the same thing in any type of airplane. The fact they had a chute, IMO, is not why they made a poor fuel decision. It IS why they're alive and not possibly dead.
Click to expand...


Back before Chutes,,,, Gravity enforced the DARWIN syndrome.... Now , idiots live and reproduce.......

NOT a good thing....:no::no::no:
 
I am not a cirrus guy, I love my da40. But what do you do when you lose an engine( the only engine) in IMC at 5000' with 300' ceilings? In my case, I die. If I had a cirrus, I would probably live. Most Cirrus owners I know are damn good pilots.
 
Rick Wallace said:
I am not a cirrus guy, I love my da40. But what do you do when you lose an engine( the only engine) in IMC at 5000' with 300' ceilings? In my case, I die. If I had a cirrus, I would probably live. Most Cirrus owners I know are damn good pilots.
Click to expand...

But those pilots don't make the news.
 
Rick Wallace said:
I am not a cirrus guy, I love my da40. But what do you do when you lose an engine( the only engine) in IMC at 5000' with 300' ceilings? In my case, I die. If I had a cirrus, I would probably live. Most Cirrus owners I know are damn good pilots.
Click to expand...


Immediately pull back to slow down to best glide speed, nearest, direct to, turn to destination, make mayday call....
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
don't hate the player.....hate the game.:goofy:
Click to expand...

But it IS the players that are giving the airframe a bad name. Just like with the Bonanzas in the past. I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with the Cirrus airframe. On the other hand, some of the knuckleheads flying them are not helping the reputation (although I suppose you could argue that every 'save' regardless of the root cause contributes to future sales).
 
Fearless Tower said:
But it IS the players that are giving the airframe a bad name. Just like with the Bonanzas in the past. I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with the Cirrus airframe. On the other hand, some of the knuckleheads flying them are not helping the reputation (although I suppose you could argue that every 'save' regardless of the root cause contributes to future sales).
Click to expand...

Pretty clever marketing I would say...:redface:
 
frfly172 said:
Cirrus made a great airplane,the chute works. The problem seems some pilots are flying them,in a lackluster manner,counting on the chute,to handle their ,lack of skill.
Click to expand...

I think that is very true. That is by no means an indictment on anyone who buys a Cirrus, but I suspect that too many people take additional risk because they know there is a parachute IF something goes wrong.

I think twins have been long plagued by the same issue. You'll probably never be able to prove it (because the culprits are either dead or won't admit it), but I suspect that many twin accidents happened because the pilot elected to depart with a questionable engine on the basis of having a second engine. That doesn't make a twin bad, just opens the door for bad decision making.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying this guy did the best job with his planning or keeping his IFR piloting abilities where they should be. Heck, non of us have a clue what he was thinking knowing he was low on fuel and struggling to do approaches. I would guess the thought of doing another approach and losing the engine with one tank running dry would be up there.

I am just going to say that in this situation he got himself into, pulling the chute was the likely best option for "Him and his passenger" and thankfully he had another option to which minimized the risk to lives on the ground and in the airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think twins have been long plagued by the same issue. You'll probably never be able to prove it (because the culprits are either dead or won't admit it), but I suspect that many twin accidents happened because the pilot elected to depart with a questionable engine on the basis of having a second engine. That doesn't make a twin bad, just opens the door for bad decision making.
Click to expand...

Happens with a twin because you lose 80% of your performance losing an engine in a recip, and folks don't stay current and/or practice single engine procedures
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Happens with a twin because you lose 80% of your performance losing an engine in a recip, and folks don't stay and/or practice single engine procedures
Click to expand...

Yup...

The good engine will take you to the scene of the crash....And you will beat the first responders too...:sad::sad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top