Cirrus pull, two uninjured.

"a real pilot could have glided his (insert your favorite *real* plane) down to a perfect landing. Parachutes are for the weak and pathetic"
We had a discussion about this on Facebook and my reply was that it’s all about pride. Unfortunately, most pilots have an overflowing cup of pride and pulling the handle will destroy that. It’s sad that arrogance has that kind of effect on risk management. The handle is there for a reason, so use it!

The chute saves the day again!
 
It's like deciding you don't need a life jacket and can swim to shore 5 miles away in frigid temperatures after your boat sank. You know, because you're the best swimmer you know, star in high school water polo, and real men of the ocean don't need to stinking life jacket.

But I digress

Will be interesting to hear what happened. Engine failure? (pilot induced?).. loss of control.. stall..? Will be curious to hear it

This right here.. is epic: "“They were unharmed, really not a scratch on them,” Mancuso said."
 
"a real pilot could have glided his (insert your favorite *real* plane) down to a perfect landing. Parachutes are for the weak and pathetic"
You sound like my wife.

This past weekend, we were flying and a Cirrus started to taxi out before us. My wife (non-pilot, no interest in aviation what-so-ever) said, "Ah dang, that Cirrus guy got out ahead of us. Those Cirrus guys seem like some real ****-poor pilots." She's not into aviation, and only knows what she knows about aviation through me (and I personally like Cirrus so I haven't bad mouthed them) or what she's seen in her limited experience of flying with me.
 
This past weekend, we were flying and a Cirrus started to taxi out before us. My wife (non-pilot, no interest in aviation what-so-ever) said, "Ah dang, that Cirrus guy got out ahead of us. Those Cirrus guys seem like some real ****-poor pilots." She's not into aviation, and only knows what she knows about aviation through me (and I personally like Cirrus so I haven't bad mouthed them) or what she's seen in her limited experience of flying with me.
It happens.. someone in another thread mentioned a similarity in Tesla perception as well. Oh well. Those bad Cirrus pilots would be bad pilots regardless of what they fly though, it just wouldn't be as notable since they're flying "what everyone else" flies

I've long felt that glass cockpits, FIKI, AP, can lead to getting in over your head. I don't think CAPS does the same.. that's a big event (emotionally, financially, etc.) to pull the chute. I liken it more to seatbelts and life jackets. You don't sail in worse conditions just because you have life jackets on board
 
Cirrious question.....


Does anyone think Cirrus pilots take more risk or lack pilot skills because they know the get out of death handle is right above their heads? Basically, they know that they don’t need to fly like non-chute pilots because of that safety blanket?

I flew a guy in an SR22 and and he seriously just didn’t care much about anything. If it gets too much, he would just pull the chute. (Paraphrased convo). It wasn’t 6PC. He was legit.
 
Cirrious question.....


Does anyone think Cirrus pilots take more risk or lack pilot skills because they know the get out of death handle is right above their heads? Basically, they know that they don’t need to fly like non-chute pilots because of that safety blanket?

I flew a guy in an SR22 and and he seriously just didn’t care much about anything. If it gets too much, he would just pull the chute. (Paraphrased convo). It wasn’t 6PC. He was legit.
Some may, but I’d wager that most are just as risk averse as the average pilot.
 
Cirrious question.....


Does anyone think Cirrus pilots take more risk or lack pilot skills because they know the get out of death handle is right above their heads? Basically, they know that they don’t need to fly like non-chute pilots because of that safety blanket?

I flew a guy in an SR22 and and he seriously just didn’t care much about anything. If it gets too much, he would just pull the chute. (Paraphrased convo). It wasn’t 6PC. He was legit.

I think there are pilots with more money than sense and I think some of those guys are attracted to Cirrus, but Cirrus certainly doesn't have a monopoly on those pilots. The Cirrus training is pretty comprehensive, thorough and risk adverse. Unfortunately some pilots are not.
 
I think there are pilots with more money than sense and I think some of those guys are attracted to Cirrus, but Cirrus certainly doesn't have a monopoly on those pilots. The Cirrus training is pretty comprehensive, thorough and risk adverse. Unfortunately some pilots are not.

I think this may be the best post I've ever seen on the subject. Nailed it.
 
Had my engine gone out over the UP I would have almost certainly wound up dead. With the chute I'd have lived through it. Kudos to Cirrus and congrats to BRS on another save, should it turn out that way. Had there been a nice flat field right next to that bit of woods I think the pilot will ave some egg on his face. Then again, I doubt the insurance company will care even a little bit. Better to pay out for the airframe than injured and dead passengers.
 
Had my engine gone out over the UP I would have almost certainly wound up dead. With the chute I'd have lived through it. Kudos to Cirrus and congrats to BRS on another save, should it turn out that way. Had there been a nice flat field right next to that bit of woods I think the pilot will ave some egg on his face. Then again, I doubt the insurance company will care even a little bit. Better to pay out for the airframe than injured and dead passengers.
I don't know what UP is (Upper Peninsula?) but if you are saying an engine out over trees is a death sentence you are just as wrong as you can be. I personally know 3 people that have had to land in trees. One broke a collar bone (getting out of the tree) and the other two walked away with nothing but bruises. On the other hand, I know nobody that has died landing in trees (that's a joke). The point is it is not a death sentence.
 
I don't know what UP is (Upper Peninsula?) but if you are saying an engine out over trees is a death sentence you are just as wrong as you can be. I personally know 3 people that have had to land in trees. One broke a collar bone (getting out of the tree) and the other two walked away with nothing but bruises. On the other hand, I know nobody that has died landing in trees (that's a joke). The point is it is not a death sentence.

The UP is the Upper Peninsula, but they ain't gonna find ya before the bears do. :eek:
 
No marks or damage on the prop. It's safe to assume the chute pull was preceded by a lack of propeller goroundiness, and therefore it was a good idea to pull.

As for the survivability of landing in a forest canopy, that sounds like the claim seat belts are killers 'because I know a guy that wasn't wearing one and he was thrown clear when the car exploded'.
 
No marks or damage on the prop. It's safe to assume the chute pull was preceded by a lack of propeller goroundiness, and therefore it was a good idea to pull.

As for the survivability of landing in a forest canopy, that sounds like the claim seat belts are killers 'because I know a guy that wasn't wearing one and he was thrown clear when the car exploded'.
No. My post never made any claim that chutes were worse. I simply said that not having a chute isn’t a death sentence. Don’t build strawmen.
 
I don't know what UP is (Upper Peninsula?) but if you are saying an engine out over trees is a death sentence you are just as wrong as you can be. I personally know 3 people that have had to land in trees. One broke a collar bone (getting out of the tree) and the other two walked away with nothing but bruises. On the other hand, I know nobody that has died landing in trees (that's a joke). The point is it is not a death sentence.

I was thinking I might like to meet you someday, but now I’m not so sure. Three is to many to chalk it up to coincidence.

https://images.app.goo.gl/zBsjdDeJZdADNisGA
 
No marks or damage on the prop. It's safe to assume the chute pull was preceded by a lack of propeller goroundiness, and therefore it was a good idea to pull.

As for the survivability of landing in a forest canopy, that sounds like the claim seat belts are killers 'because I know a guy that wasn't wearing one and he was thrown clear when the car exploded'.

Isn't pulling the mixture control and shutting down the engine one of the prerequisites to a controlled CAPS pull in a Cirrus?
 
Isn't pulling the mixture control and shutting down the engine one of the prerequisites to a controlled CAPS pull in a Cirrus?
it's a conti bud, its dun' shut down on ya by the time you re even looking for the Allah handle. ;):D
 
Isn't pulling the mixture control and shutting down the engine one of the prerequisites to a controlled CAPS pull in a Cirrus?

Well, I'll be darned. I didn't even think of that.

Thanks for pointing it out.
 
You don't sail in worse conditions just because you have life jackets on board

I don't know if that's true, in the abstract. I definitely read somewhere (and am too lazy to look it up now -- anyone know the source) that when NYC taxicabs all installed antilock brakes, accident rates went down, and then over the next few months gradually increased to pretty much exactly the same rate as they had before when drivers unconsciously recalibrated their driving habits to their level of risk tolerance. So as much as people like to say "I want to get a FIKI airplane just in case; I'll never fly in ice," it will probably affect your willingness to fly *near* ice, etc. So I'm skeptical of someone buying a safety feature with the claim that it will have absolutely no effect on their personal minima.

(All that said, I don't have the money for a parachute, but would strongly consider one if I did.)
 
I don't know if that's true, in the abstract. I definitely read somewhere (and am too lazy to look it up now -- anyone know the source) that when NYC taxicabs all installed antilock brakes, accident rates went down, and then over the next few months gradually increased to pretty much exactly the same rate as they had before when drivers unconsciously recalibrated their driving habits to their level of risk tolerance. So as much as people like to say "I want to get a FIKI airplane just in case; I'll never fly in ice," it will probably affect your willingness to fly *near* ice, etc. So I'm skeptical of someone buying a safety feature with the claim that it will have absolutely no effect on their personal minima.

(All that said, I don't have the money for a parachute, but would strongly consider one if I did.)

What's the point of FIKI if you never fly in ice?
You don't need to go looking for trouble, but intelligent use of the equipment on your plane should expand your envelope if it is equipped with such.
 
What's the point of FIKI if you never fly in ice?
You don't need to go looking for trouble, but intelligent use of the equipment on your plane should expand your envelope if it is equipped with such.

One encounter with inadvertent icing will let you know the point.
 
One encounter with inadvertent icing will let you know the point.

LOL.
I fly an Aztec. With boots, hot props and a windshield plate. I live in the Rockies. Ice is not unknown here. ;)

Once again, intelligent use of the equipment on your plane will expand the envelope. Otherwise FIKI equipment is merely expensive jewelry hung on your airframe.
 
LOL.
I fly an Aztec. With boots, hot props and a windshield plate. I live in the Rockies. Ice is not unknown here. ;)

Once again, intelligent use of the equipment on your plane will expand the envelope. Otherwise FIKI equipment is merely expensive jewelry hung on your airframe.

I fully agree with you. But every once in a while there are posts here that say "I want to add xxx to my plane / repertoire, but I'm not going to change how I fly or my personal minimums at all, so it will purely add safety." Any of these things (IFR training, FIKI, parachute) adds some balance of capability and safety, and they should. I just think anyone who truly believes that they will not change their flying habits at all is fooling themselves.
 
What's the point of FIKI if you never fly in ice?
You don't need to go looking for trouble, but intelligent use of the equipment on your plane should expand your envelope if it is equipped with such.

One encounter with inadvertent icing will let you know the point.

LOL.
I fly an Aztec. With boots, hot props and a windshield plate. I live in the Rockies. Ice is not unknown here. ;)

Once again, intelligent use of the equipment on your plane will expand the envelope. Otherwise FIKI equipment is merely expensive jewelry hung on your airframe.

I'm flying SR-22 with FIKI. My first encounter with ice was on a fly in to Quebec City in May. I was in and out of light to mod ice for a while, which would have stopped me cold in a non FIKI. But the system worked great. The airplanes without fiki or tks had to turn back. So yes, IFR and fiki does expand your envelope, the key is to not let it get you in trouble.
 
The chute is not 100% good or bad either way. Everyone's opinion will vary, as will it's effectiveness vs. the pilot's decisions of when/if to use it.

I just know that if I were flying over unfriendly landing terrain of any type, I'd be more comfy having the option.
Am I willing to pay for that?

maybe....

as long as it's not in a low wing ;)
 
Cirrious question.....


Does anyone think Cirrus pilots take more risk or lack pilot skills because they know the get out of death handle is right above their heads? Basically, they know that they don’t need to fly like non-chute pilots because of that safety blanket?

I flew a guy in an SR22 and and he seriously just didn’t care much about anything. If it gets too much, he would just pull the chute. (Paraphrased convo). It wasn’t 6PC. He was legit.


I fly at night in the Cirrus. I don't in my Grumman.
That's not quite doing stuff I am not rated for or illegal but certainly a different minimum.
 
Isn't pulling the mixture control and shutting down the engine one of the prerequisites to a controlled CAPS pull in a Cirrus?
Blue, Red, Red; that's the mnemonic. Hit the wing leveler, and pull the red handle above your head, then then one by your leg goes all the way back.

Cirrious question.....
Nice. lol

Does anyone think Cirrus pilots take more risk or lack pilot skills because they know the get out of death handle is right above their heads? Basically, they know that they don’t need to fly like non-chute pilots because of that safety blanket?
I guess it depends. The plane is basically totaled if you pull the chute, maybe some people have that kind of disposable income or are that laissez faire but most legit pilots hope to never have to pull it. Plenty of people are perfectly willing to launch out over inhospitable terrain in non chute planes.. doing it in a plane with a chute just helps lessen the anxiety, but I can only speak for myself

I flew a guy in an SR22 and and he seriously just didn’t care much about anything.
That's a poor attitude to have. I conjecture that people like this just have chronically bad ADM though.. they happen to be in a Cirrus because it's what appealed to them, but put them in any airplane and they'll exercise poor ADM. We see examples of non Cirri drivers exercising poor ADM all the time
 
I fly at night in the Cirrus. I don't in my Grumman.
That's not quite doing stuff I am not rated for or illegal but certainly a different minimum.

What kind of Grumman? I'm perfectly happy flying my Tiger at night.
 
Back
Top