Unfolding Story: Cirrus Parachute Again Saves the Day

VWGhiaBob said:
You sure do put words in other people's mouths, dude.

First, who said I I'm trying to save the plane? You. Not so.

I'm trying to avoid ruining the lives of my family by potentially depriving them of my income and love...increasing my chances of survival in this dangerous hobby of ours.

You also make a second incorrect assumption: That having a 'chute means we don't aim for an on-airport landing. Most Cirrus pilots, if they are in range and able to line up for a good approach would not use the 'chute.

Fact: The 'chute can be successfully deployed down to 500' AGL, 133 knots or less. So there's nothing wrong with trying. But if you screw it up, sure nice to have a final option that works every time.

Fact: In over 100 Cirrus deployments, no one has ever injured any innocent by-standers. We are taught to find a suitable area if possible.

In the end, dude, we make choices. I respect yours, but it doesn't work for me. Free to disagree are we in the good old USA!
Click to expand...

Every time? Hasn't there been a couple failed deployments even when above altitude and below airspeed? Now what? The towel has already been thrown in, and now your glide ratio has gone to ****.

Flail on, mighty flailer. Flail on.
 
EdFred said:
Every time? Hasn't there been a couple failed deployments even when above altitude and below airspeed? Now what? The towel has already been thrown in, and now your glide ratio has gone to ****.

Flail on, mighty flailer. Flail on.
Click to expand...

The only failure I know of that was in the envelope for a Cirrus was a failure of the chute to inflate, which then wrapped around the tail. The airplane was then flown to a safe landing.

Nobody in this thread is insulting you, we are making counter arguments. Nobody (except you) has argued for giving up, not flying the airplane, or any other "not being a REAL pilot" tactics.

Why do you feel the need to be personally insulting and an all around dick?
 
FlySince9 said:
I'll ask the question again that was asked the last time... what's up with all the Cirrus Engine Failures?
Click to expand...

Not saying this is without merit, but just playing devil's advocate. Is it possible that we hear about more of the Cirrus incidents (even if they aren't actually more numerous) because they often involve a chute, or a lack of chute when it could have been pulled, and/or because the aircraft itself seems to draw a lot of attention and polarize opinions?

Again not saying you're wrong, just throwing those out there.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Not saying this is without merit, but just playing devil's advocate. Is it possible that we hear about more of the Cirrus incidents (even if they aren't actually more numerous) because they often involve a chute, or a lack of chute when it could have been pulled, and/or because the aircraft itself seems to draw a lot of attention and polarize opinions?

Again not saying you're wrong, just throwing those out there.
Click to expand...

There's been a few guys on this board whose engine failed and it didn't make the news. Why? They glided to an airport and made a rather uneventful landing. But why glide to an airport if you can yank the chute when your fuel pressure drops 0.5 psi?
 
bullwinkle said:
The only failure I know of that was in the envelope for a Cirrus was a failure of the chute to inflate, which then wrapped around the tail. The airplane was then flown to a safe landing.

Nobody in this thread is insulting you, we are making counter arguments. Nobody (except you) has argued for giving up, not flying the airplane, or any other "not being a REAL pilot" tactics.

Why do you feel the need to be personally insulting and an all around dick?
Click to expand...

What's the recovery procedure for a spin in the Cirrus again? Isn't it pull the chute, and don't bother trying to recover?
 
denverpilot said:
Upon review of this thread, unlike the previous twenty on the topic... I learned something!

The Cirrus handle should be labeled "Jesus' Cruise Control". ;)
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. Do you remember that Cirrus chute pull where the pilot got into some nasty weather, entered an usual attitude and pulled the chute? The rocket fired but the chute didn't come out (there was a pic of the plane on the ground with the lead line dragging behind it). Somehow, the pilot was able to regain control and land. It was speculated that: a) the chute didn't come out because of the unusual attitude and b) the pilot was only able to regain control because pulling the chute required him to let go of the stick thereby allowing the plane to right itself.
 
EdFred said:
What's the recovery procedure for a spin in the Cirrus again? Isn't it pull the chute, and don't bother trying to recover?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? If an airplane manufacturer has a CAPS deployment in a procedure, you are justified being a dick?

I don't fly a Cirrus, I have no idea what's in their checklists.
 
bullwinkle said:
What does that have to do with anything? If an airplane manufacturer has a CAPS deployment in a procedure, you are justified being a dick?

I don't fly a Cirrus, I have no idea what's in their checklists.
Click to expand...

Spin: Activate CAPS

That said, I would be applying opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, down elevator until CAPS decision height.

At that point if trying to get out of the spin did not work, my ass would be logging my first skydive!
 
bullwinkle said:
What does that have to do with anything? If an airplane manufacturer has a CAPS deployment in a procedure, you are justified being a dick?

I don't fly a Cirrus, I have no idea what's in their checklists.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of replacing training with technology. It makes one less of a pilot. That goes for people who can't fly without an autopilot, can't fly without a MLOD, and even those that can't fly and ignore training because they have a chute.

Substitute won't for can't as you see fit.

When I see BRS, I see a bivalve.
 
Anyone know the stats if these are NA or turbo 550s failing? Because if its the na's failing, then that's just standard TCM POS dynamics. Perhaps they should be looking at installing the 550s into something along the derated G model (Mooney 20 S 244HP @ 2400) or the original G at 280hp (20 R). Seems like the 310 hp RATING and non-selectable cs prop installation of the cirrus might be over promising. Actually, IMO its the reason these things are crapping themselves in-flight. If there's any room for cirrus bashing, it ain't the chute, its the marketing hype based on that engine. They act like flying a plastic stiff gear airplane is a free lunch on the performance front. Maury says, its a lie.

If this is a tcm turbo installation, then that's just straight up caveat emptor pal lol. They gotta derate that engine and accept the fact the faster you go, the more knots having that nosewheel sticking out behind the propwash costs ya. No free lunch.
 
EdFred said:
I am not a fan of replacing training with technology. It makes one less of a pilot. That goes for people who can't fly without an autopilot, can't fly without a MLOD, and even those that can't fly and ignore training because they have a chute.

Substitute won't for can't as you see fit.

When I see BRS, I see a bivalve.
Click to expand...

And again, what does any of that have to do with belittling pilots who disagree with you?

Besides, how are these pilots you hate so much ignoring training when the Cirrus training says USE THE CHUTE? Or do you just disagree with how they are trained? Why does any of that turn to personal insults? If you think there are deficiencies in pilot training, wouldn't it be better to try to persuade them why their training is wrong instead of attacking them personally as "flailers"?

:dunno:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Spin: Activate CAPS

That said, I would be applying opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, down elevator until CAPS decision height.

At that point if trying to get out of the spin did not work, my ass would be logging my first skydive!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. You try to recover the aircraft to normal flight if possible. If not possible for whatever reason, CAPS is the way out.

It sounds like EdFred and some others would prefer that you auger in if you are not manly enough to recover the airplane, even if it's not recoverable. Better to have no option and die like a real pilot, than to suffer the indignity of continued life after having landed under a parachute!
 
EdFred said:
I am not a fan of replacing training with technology. It makes one less of a pilot.
Click to expand...

So...no GPS, VOR, or navaids of any kind in your cockpit besides a sectional, a stopwatch, and a compass? No autopilot? No EFIS or electric instruments? Flip-flop radio? iPad?

I'd hate to think you less a pilot by adding all that technology. But maybe you alone are special and can be trusted to use technology appropriately, unlike everybody else.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Spin: Activate CAPS

That said, I would be applying opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, down elevator until CAPS decision height.

At that point if trying to get out of the spin did not work, my ass would be logging my first skydive!
Click to expand...

Considering it was tested but the ELOS applied instead, I'm sure you'd have an alright chance at getting out with traditional PARE methods.

I'm just surprised they say "MUST USE CAPS" for this... http://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf page 5

The NASA cuffed wing design will help
pilots to avoid stall/spin events, but if controls are misused
and a spin is inadvertently entered, CAPS provides a way
for the pilot to recover, even if they are not proficient in spin
recovery procedures. Any time a Cirrus pilot experiences a
loss of control or spin, the use of CAPS is required.
Click to expand...

COPA does seem to advocate trying traditional recovery methods first, though. They do mention it'll take some more aggressive maneuvering to recover, though. https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/s...l_often/archive/2008/10/13/spinning-caps.aspx

In the same doc, it says the CAPS recovery requirement is not a limitation.
 
bullwinkle said:
Totally agree. You try to recover the aircraft to normal flight if possible. If not possible for whatever reason, CAPS is the way out.

It sounds like EdFred and some others would prefer that you auger in if you are not manly enough to recover the airplane, even if it's not recoverable. Better to have no option and die like a real pilot, than to suffer the indignity of continued life after having landed under a parachute!
Click to expand...

He's just taking the lazy way around the cognitive dissonance that his plane doesn't have a parachute and the only way to claim he is safer is that the chute is bad and he's a better pilot.

Probably some self esteem and jealousy issues too. See it all the time. But go ahead and call me a flailer all you want, Ed, I know the guy who pulled this parachute and am damn glad he is still alive. I don't really care what some stranger on the Internet with a small pecker complex says.
 
bullwinkle said:
So...no GPS, VOR, or navaids of any kind in your cockpit besides a sectional, a stopwatch, and a compass? No autopilot? No EFIS or electric instruments? Flip-flop radio? iPad?

I'd hate to think you less a pilot by adding all that technology. But maybe you alone are special and can be trusted to use technology appropriately, unlike everybody else.
Click to expand...

Read again what I said.
 
RudyP said:
He's just taking the lazy way around the cognitive dissonance that his plane doesn't have a parachute and the only way to claim he is safer is that the chute is bad and he's a better pilot.

Probably some self esteem and jealousy issues too. See it all the time. But go ahead and call me a flailer all you want, Ed, I know the guy who pulled this parachute and am damn glad he is still alive. I don't really care what some stranger on the Internet with a small pecker complex says.
Click to expand...

If you showed up to the numerous fly-ins we had in your area, I wouldn't be a stranger. Fact is, you are wrong on all points.
 
EdFred said:
Read again what I said.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you said. However in this case:

1) Training INCLUDES the CAPS, it's not a hindrance to it.

2) The presence of CAPS does not equate to poor training, as you imply.
 
Cirrus ignorant here, so stand down on the flames for a moment? Real question - is it correct that spin recovery procedure is pull the chute? That's the bold-face for it? As in, the airplane can't (or probably/usually) can't be recovered from an upright spin using aerdynamic control inputs?
 
bullwinkle said:
I know exactly what you said. However in this case:

1) Training INCLUDES the CAPS, it's not a hindrance to it.

2) The presence of CAPS does not equate to poor training, as you imply.
Click to expand...

We disagree, and probably never will agree.

Why do I need to learn how to read a sectional or low enroute? I have GPS.
Why do I need to learn how to calculate winds? I have ForeFlight.
Why do I need to learn how to hold heading? I have an autopilot.
Why do I need to do unusual attitude recoveries? I have a chute.

Training gets replaced with technology, and makes one a worse pilot. I will never be convinced otherwise. And it's easy to tell when you ask someone how to XYZ, the glazed look comes over their face, and it's "Uh, well, I (insert training replacement technology here.)"

Even above the POH doesn't even bother to say recover - it's just pull the chute. Sorry, that makes for some ****ty piloting.
 
Sundancer said:
Cirrus ignorant here, so stand down on the flames for a moment? Real question - is it correct that spin recovery procedure is pull the chute? That's the bold-face for it? As in, the airplane can't (or probably/usually) can't be recovered from an upright spin using aerdynamic control inputs?
Click to expand...

Yes and no

The emergency checklist DOES say in the event of a spin, activate CAPS. It is on the little TV screen in the console during preflight.

The Cirrus is fully capable of recovering from a spin.
However, in the U.S. it was not spin certified. In Europe, I believe it was and demonstrated spin recovery. If I understand correctly that was required over there but the chute was enough in the U.S. Someone can correct me.
 
I wonder what would happen if you pull the parachute during a stall and try to fly the airplane with it out. :popcorn:
 
hindsight2020 said:
Anyone know the stats if these are NA or turbo 550s failing? Because if its the na's failing, then that's just standard TCM POS dynamics. Perhaps they should be looking at installing the 550s into something along the derated G model (Mooney 20 S 244HP @ 2400) or the original G at 280hp (20 R). Seems like the 310 hp RATING and non-selectable cs prop installation of the cirrus might be over promising. Actually, IMO its the reason these things are crapping themselves in-flight. If there's any room for cirrus bashing, it ain't the chute, its the marketing hype based on that engine. They act like flying a plastic stiff gear airplane is a free lunch on the performance front. Maury says, its a lie.

If this is a tcm turbo installation, then that's just straight up caveat emptor pal lol. They gotta derate that engine and accept the fact the faster you go, the more knots having that nosewheel sticking out behind the propwash costs ya. No free lunch.
Click to expand...

I would expect the powerplants and the related installation variables to be the most reliable in its class, sure doesn't seem to be. :dunno:
 
Anyone else thing the "Unfolding story" part of the title is funny, considering we're discussing a parachute?

Nah?

Oh well, I tried.
 
bnt83 said:
I would expect the powerplants and the related installation variables to be the most reliable in its class, sure doesn't seem to be. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Chinese engine and Chinese owned airplane production? Are you trolling me?!? :lol:
 
I've had two engine failures, I'd share the news articles but there aren't any, simply landed at a airport for one, and a standard issue backcountry landing for the other, neither were NTSB worthy, zero damage to persons, property, or even the paint.

Had they been in cirrus with the standard issue "just pull" training it would have been two totaled aircraft, two NTSB reports, and possibly major injuries.



hindsight2020 said:
Chinese engine and Chinese owned airplane production? Are you trolling me?!? :lol:
Click to expand...

Exactly, they can't even make underware that last, and I'm going to fly in their airframes :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know? what is it with all the engine failures? Earlier in this thread someone said a crankshaft broke in one that was brought to his hanger. Are most of them twisted cranks? Or are they various failures? Does Cirrus (or whoever they contract for their engines) use lower qc practices since the shoot has their back?

When I was a kid I don't recall all this metal recycling and crackheads stealing stuff to sell for their next hit. I'm no alchemist :wink2: but I wonder how iron fares after a dozen cycles of melting and forgery???
 
James331 said:
Had they been in cirrus with the standard issue "just pull" training it would have been two totaled aircraft, two NTSB reports, and possibly major injuries.
Click to expand...

Which Cirrus training did you go through?
Just curious.
 
James331 said:
Thankfully none. I've always been trained to fly the plane until it won't fly anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh, My transition instructor taught me the same thing. :hairraise:
What an idiot!

I don't know why people say Cirrus pilots are trained to pull the chute.
in 20 hours of flying with the guy we had exactly 1 conversation about that handle and I'll be damned if the situations in which it was to be pulled were when the plane was no longer "flying"

If I am tumbling out of the sky with ice covered wings, or missing a control surface, there is no amount of skill that will save me.

Nowhere in any of the Cirrus training programs I have read about have they ever said "If your engine quits, pull the chute" It is simply not what they teach.

If you don't want a chute, I don't want you to have one. My next plane wont have one but I am not going to propagate nonsense about pilots that have access to them.
 
EdFred said:
I am not a fan of replacing training with technology.
Click to expand...
They are not replacing training with technology, they are training to use the technology that is available.
 
If I pull the chute and walk away,I'm for the chute. You buy the best avionics,and then complain about the price of the chute. All the technology put into the airplane is there to save your butt.
 
I don't have a dog in the fight, but the chute seems a real big expense for a low-probability of usefullness, and it does seem the "save" numbers are exaggerated, as well.

But if you have the bucks, like the airplane, that's cool, too. Stick and rudder skills are down everywhere, from military to airlines to GA. Not the chute's fault.

I very much doubt I'd consider buying a STC for one; the money, to my mind, would be better spent on avionics, or fuel for practice. I guess if money were no object, I might buy one. Even it did make me a sissy. . .
 
edit:

I shouldn't let scotch post on my behalf. I'm glad the dude is ok.
 
Last edited:
RudyP said:
He's just taking the lazy way around the cognitive dissonance that his plane doesn't have a parachute and the only way to claim he is safer is that the chute is bad and he's a better pilot.

Probably some self esteem and jealousy issues too. See it all the time. But go ahead and call me a flailer all you want, Ed, I know the guy who pulled this parachute and am damn glad he is still alive. I don't really care what some stranger on the Internet with a small pecker complex says.
Click to expand...

Rudy, completely unrelated question but are you friends with Alex Wolf?
 
EdFred said:
If you showed up to the numerous fly-ins we had in your area, I wouldn't be a stranger. Fact is, you are wrong on all points.
Click to expand...

Update from the OP, a frequent user of the Cirrus site...

Many have posted thanks to Cirrus, BRS...and well-wishes to the pilot who is highly skilled - one of the best. In spite of the rants here, these folks spend their time attending intense pilot training that far exceeds the "normal" pilot training curriculum. I know because I've done them all.

Contrary to Ed's ill-informed rants, the majority of these pilots know:
* A parachute is not a substitute for good piloting skills
* BRS parachutes have saved many lives
* Cirrus training focuses on piloting skills in one of the most demanding courses in aviation (CPPP)
* The best pilots in the world can find themselves in situations they can't control (e.g., engine out over the Bahamas with your 12 year old daughter in the plane)
* A parachute is but one tool in an aircraft that is now at the bottom of the fatality list

We pilots, no matter how macho we are, engage in a statistically dangerous sport. The best of us are not immune to things out of our control - and -
God forbid - mistakes we make no matter how much training we have.

I'm thankful for the chute. If one day I have to downsize to a 182 or 172, I'll be writing a check for the BRS STC'd Cessna version.

May the truth prevail here, as it appears it has for most of the posters. If there are additional insights out of this event, I will post them.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
We disagree, and probably never will agree.

Why do I need to learn how to read a sectional or low enroute? I have GPS.
Why do I need to learn how to calculate winds? I have ForeFlight.
Why do I need to learn how to hold heading? I have an autopilot.
Why do I need to do unusual attitude recoveries? I have a chute.

Training gets replaced with technology, and makes one a worse pilot. I will never be convinced otherwise. And it's easy to tell when you ask someone how to XYZ, the glazed look comes over their face, and it's "Uh, well, I (insert training replacement technology here.)"

Even above the POH doesn't even bother to say recover - it's just pull the chute. Sorry, that makes for some ****ty piloting.
Click to expand...

How about both knowing how to read a sectional AND using a GPS?
How about knowing how to calc winds AND using FF?
How about knowing how to hold a heading AND having an AP?
How about knowing recovery inputs AND having a chute?

For that matter, how about knowing how to deadstick an airplane AND having dual ignitions?

I don't know where you get the either/or mentality from.

The POH "Spin - Deploy CAPS" language is almost certainly there to reduce liability and placate lawyers, since there was no spin certification done.
 
bullwinkle said:
How about both knowing how to read a sectional AND using a GPS?
How about knowing how to calc winds AND using FF?
How about knowing how to hold a heading AND having an AP?
How about knowing recovery inputs AND having a chute?

For that matter, how about knowing how to deadstick an airplane AND having dual ignitions?

I don't know where you get the either/or mentality from.

The POH "Spin - Deploy CAPS" language is almost certainly there to reduce liability and placate lawyers, since there was no spin certification done.
Click to expand...

Bravo Bullwinkle. You nailed it. Anyone who disagrees with you just isn't thinking. Nicely put!

Meanwhile, Jim, the guy who deployed the chute is having coffee this morning with his family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top