Cirrus Parachute

Texastaildragger

Texastaildragger

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
345
Location
Vernon Tx
Display Name
Display name:
Rick
Call me crazy, but I don't see the advantage of a chute. Unless you have a wing come off why pull it and lose control of your bird. Maybe it's from being taught by an Ag pilot to fly it all the way in.
After reading multiple accident reports where the pilot ( in my opinion ) could have set it down, but instead put their faith in the prevailing wind., I don't understand.
Where am I going wrong?
Admittedly I fly mainly in western Texas where you can land practically anywhere :D
 
So you are IFR with low ceilings and the engine stops. Now, some people on the Red Board say the solution is to never fly a single IFR with anything but high ceilings so maybe this doesn't count for you.

As for off field landings, in a Cirrus, the record under CAPS is better than the record of off field landings done the conventional way.

I am constantly amazed by the prevailing wind comment since a review of the physics involved, and a review of CAPS pull history, says it isn't an issue.

I agree that several CAPS pulls would have probably beed successful emergencies even without CAPS but how about these:

1) Sone pulls handle when plane stalls and goes into spiral dive with pilot unresponsive. I think this pull was only 400' above the ground. The pilot died but everyone else lived.
2) Pilot goes into spiral at night over the Canadian Rockies. Plane comes down on steep side of a mountain. Everyone is safe. Like most accidents it was pilot error but at least he and his family are alive.
3) After maintenance, a nut comes off and an aileron comes loose causing control problems. Now maybe it would have been a successful landing but when it takes two hands at speed do you really want to count on maintaining control on landing?
4) How about another maintenance issue. After maintenance a flap hinge isn't properly secured. The flap comes loose. The pilot is low on approach. After trying to adjust flaps and climb out of the situation he pulls when the plane is in an uncommanded roll to the right. Everyone walks away.

By comparison consider the Mooney pilot who was flying at night with a friend. The friend sees the oil pressure gauge flicker. The pilot decides to find his best emergency spot below and check. As he starts to circle a dark patch the oil pressure goes to zero and the engine seizes. He puts down in what turns to to be a lake. The pilot drowns.

Or how about this one. A pilot has a share in a Cirrus. His partner says the pilot is very dismissive of the chute. The plane has an engine failure at altitude. The pilot announces to ATC that he is making an emergency landing. It goes well till the front wheel digs into a bank killing the pilot and his wife. Their daughter seated in the rear survived.

I am not in the camp that CAPS is some ultimate safety feature. There are plenty of scenarios where it doesn't come into play. Additionally it cost money initially, money to maintain, consumes space and consumes useful load. All that said, it is far from useless.
 
Thank you for your input. I shouldn't have said advantage. I should have used cost/ benefit. Didn't mean to imply it was useless.
 
Times I'd want a chute:

Night
Low IMC
Dense Forrest
Dense Urban
Over Water
Jungle
Rocks
Swamps
Any Unknown Conditions

The rest of the time, having a chute is still a nice option. I don't see a down side.
 
The cost/benefit is also plane specific. In a Cirrus, which stalls at 65mph ish, has really skinny tires not ideally suited for off roading and a frangible wing that bursts into flames easier than a Ford Pinto, it's a more compelling proposition. Given the demonstrated survivability of chute pulls in the Cirrus, I would much rather pull than land unless I had a really nice improved landing surface available (better than a dirt field) in easy gliding distance.
 
Most cirrus pilots kill themselves. A chute is for when the plane fails mechanically, which happens so infrequently that the chute is just silly.

But opinions vary. Usually the very strong positive opinions are by the owners of said product.
 
Wingsofglass said:
The cost/benefit is also plane specific. In a Cirrus, which stalls at 65mph ish, has really skinny tires not ideally suited for off roading and a frangible wing that bursts into flames easier than a Ford Pinto, it's a more compelling proposition. Given the demonstrated survivability of chute pulls in the Cirrus, I would much rather pull than land unless I had a really nice improved landing surface available (better than a dirt field) in easy gliding distance.
Click to expand...

That explains a lot to someone, like me, that flies stuff that can land off airport easily.
 
Texastaildragger said:
I should have used cost/ benefit. Didn't mean to imply it was useless.
Click to expand...

When flying overland a chute should be far cheaper than a second engine while presumably providing similar safe "outs." At least for the passengers. A second engine doesn't help in a midair collision, while a chute doesn't help in an engine failure over water.

Try to draw up an attack (or threat) tree for a twin and a chute equipped single and compare the outcomes for various branches.
 
I would opt out of the chute option.

First, I do not see myself every relinquishing control of the plane.
Second, I do not like the $15k repack fee every 5 years.
Third, I wouldn't pay the $35k initial cost to have it in the first place.
Finally, I see it like insurance, very expensive and will likely find a way to let you down in the end anyway. Rather than pay to believe you have something you don't I would prefer to not have it at all.

I believe that having a chute could unconscionably encourage someone into a situation beyond their ability's or best judgement. I am glas other guys have them. Over time they will be studied and improved and perhaps some day they will be a major force in aviation like seat belts and airbags and 5 mph bumpers in autos.
 
peppy said:
So you are IFR with low ceilings and the engine stops. Now, some people on the Red Board say the solution is to never fly a single IFR with anything but high ceilings so maybe this doesn't count for you.

As for off field landings, in a Cirrus, the record under CAPS is better than the record of off field landings done the conventional way.

I am constantly amazed by the prevailing wind comment since a review of the physics involved, and a review of CAPS pull history, says it isn't an issue.

I agree that several CAPS pulls would have probably beed successful emergencies even without CAPS but how about these:

1) Sone pulls handle when plane stalls and goes into spiral dive with pilot unresponsive. I think this pull was only 400' above the ground. The pilot died but everyone else lived.
2) Pilot goes into spiral at night over the Canadian Rockies. Plane comes down on steep side of a mountain. Everyone is safe. Like most accidents it was pilot error but at least he and his family are alive.
3) After maintenance, a nut comes off and an aileron comes loose causing control problems. Now maybe it would have been a successful landing but when it takes two hands at speed do you really want to count on maintaining control on landing?
4) How about another maintenance issue. After maintenance a flap hinge isn't properly secured. The flap comes loose. The pilot is low on approach. After trying to adjust flaps and climb out of the situation he pulls when the plane is in an uncommanded roll to the right. Everyone walks away.

By comparison consider the Mooney pilot who was flying at night with a friend. The friend sees the oil pressure gauge flicker. The pilot decides to find his best emergency spot below and check. As he starts to circle a dark patch the oil pressure goes to zero and the engine seizes. He puts down in what turns to to be a lake. The pilot drowns.

Or how about this one. A pilot has a share in a Cirrus. His partner says the pilot is very dismissive of the chute. The plane has an engine failure at altitude. The pilot announces to ATC that he is making an emergency landing. It goes well till the front wheel digs into a bank killing the pilot and his wife. Their daughter seated in the rear survived.

I am not in the camp that CAPS is some ultimate safety feature. There are plenty of scenarios where it doesn't come into play. Additionally it cost money initially, money to maintain, consumes space and consumes useful load. All that said, it is far from useless.
Click to expand...

Welll said. Psychological and physical capabilities, experience, and terrain vary among pilots and I don't understand dismissing any safety feature. It is always better safe than macho.
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I would opt out of the chute option.

First, I do not see myself every relinquishing control of the plane.
Second, I do not like the $15k repack fee every 5 years.
Third, I wouldn't pay the $35k initial cost to have it in the first place.
Finally, I see it like insurance, very expensive and will likely find a way to let you down in the end anyway. Rather than pay to believe you have something you don't I would prefer to not have it at all.

I believe that having a chute could unconscionably encourage someone into a situation beyond their ability's or best judgement. I am glas other guys have them. Over time they will be studied and improved and perhaps some day they will be a major force in aviation like seat belts and airbags and 5 mph bumpers in autos.
Click to expand...

IIRC it's closer to $10k ever 10 years. I hung out with a few of the Cirrus guys at OSH and even got the full G5 experience - I have changed my song and dance significantly.


I wouldn't mind a chute.
 
'Chutes for 172's and 182'S!

It really is hard to understand why folks would NOT want a 'chute. To the original poster...that's great you have lots of places to land in West Texas. But try to find a place flying over urban LA.

If you won't do it for yourself, do it for your loved ones.

And get this if you don't know it already: The same 'chute is available for 150's, 172's and 182's! And it's cheaper than you think. If I recall correctly, less than $15K. Go to: http://brsparachutes.com/
 
Rick,
Once I get my project off the ground, it will have a BRS. It's a one-off design of my own making, so I'll keep the BRS untill after the first 40 hours of testing. Then off it comes to increase useful load. :D

Ask Lawrence if he was in a situation, (low imc, rough terrain) and had the fan quit, would he pull th' chute? or would he "fly it to the ground"?
Either way the insurance company owns it at that point.
 
Last edited:
Texastaildragger said:
After reading multiple accident reports where the pilot ( in my opinion ) could have set it down, but instead put their faith in the prevailing wind., I don't understand.
Click to expand...
Frankly I have read many more reports where pilot should have pulled the chute but instead relied on his abilities (which were questionable to begin with) to get out of the mess and met his Maker and pulled his undeserving passengers with him to the grave. If someone actually pulled the chute I admire their decision making and humble attitude towards flying/safety. My only criticism is not the parachute itself but mental inability of many pilots to actually use it and save lives.
 
Last edited:
A flight instructor with 2 passengers on board ran a Cirrus out of fuel and found out just how useful a chute is. Happened in Danbury, CT, just this summer.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
...
I believe that having a chute could unconscionably encourage someone into a situation beyond their ability's or best judgement. ....
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement and I think planes with a BRS system may actually have higher accident rates because they may attract this kind of pilot.

DavidWhite said:
IIRC it's closer to $10k ever 10 years. I hung out with a few of the Cirrus guys at OSH and even got the full G5 experience - I have changed my song and dance significantly.


I wouldn't mind a chute.
Click to expand...

David's numbers are correct.

So why would I have a chute? Biggest reason is If I had my family or any pax for that matter and became incapacitated.
 
Texastaildragger said:
. I should have used cost/ benefit. Didn't mean to imply it was useless.
Click to expand...
Cost benefit is a fair point, this applies to many features and equipage of contemporary aircraft. For example is synthetic vision a cost effective feature, or FADEC or ADSB, etc. What is however particular unique to the BRS is that there are those handful of cases that pilot finds himself/herself in a dire situation where frankly a parachute can be more valuable than the rest of the airplane and all that remains is to run quickly the odds in your head. Even if you decide not to pull you may be thankful later that you did have this option.
 
AdamZ said:
I agree with this statement and I think planes with a BRS system may actually have higher accident rates because they may attract this kind of pilot.
Click to expand...

I have heard this supposition a lot but haven't seen any data supporting it. I actually think large moving maps, in cockpit weather and a comfortable interior have a bigger impact. Risk homeostasis studies show that, in cars, airbags have little effect on driving habits but better brakes do.
 
Jim Logajan said:
When flying overland a chute should be far cheaper than a second engine while presumably providing similar safe "outs." At least for the passengers. A second engine doesn't help in a midair collision, while a chute doesn't help in an engine failure over water.

Try to draw up an attack (or threat) tree for a twin and a chute equipped single and compare the outcomes for various branches.
Click to expand...

Ever seen what an airplane does whe. It hits the water with the gear down? It flips, every time... I would gladly pop the doors and pull the chute over a body of water if I'm going in there anyway.
 
Inverted said:
Ever seen what an airplane does whe. It hits the water with the gear down? It flips, every time... I would gladly pop the doors and pull the chute over a body of water if I'm going in there anyway.
Click to expand...
Not even close to true.
 
If they had a parachute STC for a Comanche I'd buy it.....

Heck, I paid 4K years ago for shoulder harnesses. Don't ever plan to use them, but it's nice to know they're there.
 
Inverted said:
Ever seen what an airplane does whe. It hits the water with the gear down? It flips, every time... I would gladly pop the doors and pull the chute over a body of water if I'm going in there anyway.
Click to expand...
I know, from personal experience, that this is NOT true.
 
DavidWhite said:
IIRC it's closer to $10k ever 10 years. I hung out with a few of the Cirrus guys at OSH and even got the full G5 experience - I have changed my song and dance significantly.
Click to expand...

Watching a local guy with a cirrus looking replace his chute at the 10yr limit I find that its more like $15k minimum today and who knows what it will be in 10 more years. When he bought the plane 6 years ago it was supposed to cost $10k to replace, not repack and its gone up 50% in that time. What does that say for the future? He has had a hard time finding an authorized shop to do the work in this area and the least expensive was $14,800. The factory authorized shop in Tennessee was much more. Double the cost and you can buy a mooney.....

I don't really have a dog in this fight but thought I'd put some actual data in for thought.
 
BiffJ said:
Watching a local guy with a cirrus looking replace his chute at the 10yr limit I find that its more like $15k minimum today and who knows what it will be in 10 more years. When he bought the plane 6 years ago it was supposed to cost $10k to replace, not repack and its gone up 50% in that time. What does that say for the future? He has had a hard time finding an authorized shop to do the work in this area and the least expensive was $14,800. The factory authorized shop in Tennessee was much more. Double the cost and you can buy a mooney.....

I don't really have a dog in this fight but thought I'd put some actual data in for thought.
Click to expand...

G1 plane?
 
Skylane81E said:
G1 plane?
Click to expand...

Has to be based both on time and cost. That still seems more like what the first few paid rather than what people are reporting now. G2 onward is looking more like $9K to $10K from what I have seen but mine isn't due for another 3 years.

[edited to correct numbers]

I first edited to correct some numbers from my failing memory.However, after going back and doing a COPA search, another issue is that Cirrus may change the design since the manufacturer doesn't want to make the old rocket design now that there is a new one. That will increase the cost down the road. So $14,000 might be accurate down the road.
 
Last edited:
Texastaildragger said:
Call me crazy, but I don't see the advantage of a chute. Unless you have a wing come off why pull it and lose control of your bird. Maybe it's from being taught by an Ag pilot to fly it all the way in.
After reading multiple accident reports where the pilot ( in my opinion ) could have set it down, but instead put their faith in the prevailing wind., I don't understand.
Where am I going wrong?
Admittedly I fly mainly in western Texas where you can land practically anywhere :D
Click to expand...

How much is your life worth? Is it worth $1,000 per year for 10 years? How about your wife's, kids, family, etc....

It is a worthless option right up to the point it saves your life.

A Cirrus or twin is in my future, or a helicopter.
 
jmp470 said:
How much is your life worth? Is it worth $1,000 per year for 10 years? How about your wife's, kids, family, etc....

It is a worthless option right up to the point it saves your life.

A Cirrus or twin is in my future, or a helicopter.
Click to expand...

If one spent their money using your logic they would be out in a hurry.
 
Inverted said:
Ever seen what an airplane does whe. It hits the water with the gear down? It flips, every time... I would gladly pop the doors and pull the chute over a body of water if I'm going in there anyway.
Click to expand...

Not true in the slightest. Water is the time I wouldn't pull the chute (outside my own incapacitation) since the gear won't have the designed impact absorption.
 
Henning said:
Not true in the slightest. Water is the time I wouldn't pull the chute (outside my own incapacitation) since the gear won't have the designed impact absorption.
Click to expand...

This was a big discussion on COPA until Dick McLaughlin pulled near the Bahamas. His experience pretty much put the question to rest in favor of CAPS. The movement of water on impact seems to make up for the gear not deforming. Neither occupant sustained any injuries. Both Dick and his daughter did some excellent posts on their experience. One point Dick made was that he was surprised how his mental functionality decreased as the incident progressed. He said setting a decision height early was one of his better actions since it helped maintain mental clarity of action. The initial deceleration was huge. Dick said it was an E-ticket ride. The ability to plan for impact once CAPS was deployed was a benefit. The chute stayed inflated and helped rescuers find the plane.

Since you lose the plane either way, I see no reason not to pull if ditching.
 
peppy said:
This was a big discussion on COPA until Dick McLaughlin pulled near the Bahamas. His experience pretty much put the question to rest in favor of CAPS. The movement of water on impact seems to make up for the gear not deforming. Neither occupant sustained any injuries. Both Dick and his daughter did some excellent posts on their experience. One point Dick made was that he was surprised how his mental functionality decreased as the incident progressed. He said setting a decision height early was one of his better actions since it helped maintain mental clarity of action. The initial deceleration was huge. Dick said it was an E-ticket ride. The ability to plan for impact once CAPS was deployed was a benefit. The chute stayed inflated and helped rescuers find the plane.

Since you lose the plane either way, I see no reason not to pull if ditching.
Click to expand...

Well, that leaves the results mixed because you have the guy in nY with the broke back.
 
I think being in water with wings submerged is the safest place a pilot could be in a Cirrus.
 
Henning said:
Well, that leaves the results mixed because you have the guy in nY with the broke back.
Click to expand...

Ilan cracked a vertebrae. He was fine several weeks later; at least as far as that was concerned. Ilan used power to try to steer the aircraft. BRS claims that is ineffective but can cause the chute to dump air and result in a faster descent.

While planes don't always nose down and submerge, there is that chance. Coming down under canopy negates that and gives you time to prep for exiting the plane. It also seems that there is less chance of being knocked unconscious.
 
Henning said:
Not true in the slightest. Water is the time I wouldn't pull the chute (outside my own incapacitation) since the gear won't have the designed impact absorption.
Click to expand...

Then you run the risk of flipping, the speeds at which a Cirrus is going to glide in, you can easily dig the nose gear into the water upon landing and flip it. Happens all the time. There is a reason why every single part 25 airplane, and part 23 airplane that has a water ditching checklist will tell you gear up.
 
bbchien said:
It is useful if your wife allows you to buy the airplane.
Click to expand...

This. Gives folks unfamiliar with aviation issues the illusion of safety. And you can't just pop the thing off. Being a good enough pilot to not screw up routine air work is a better guarantee of safety. Most of the folks who pulled screwed the pooch on their own.
 
steingar said:
This. Gives folks unfamiliar with aviation issues the illusion of safety. And you can't just pop the thing off. Being a good enough pilot to not screw up routine air work is a better guarantee of safety. Most of the folks who pulled screwed the pooch on their own.
Click to expand...

Their wives knew they were idiots, lame and incompetent, can't figure out why they married the loser anyway....:rofl: that's why they insisted on the parachute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top