Reports of a light aircraft down in Blue Mountains

[Bladeangle]

Looks like US rego, very lucky guys...

Plane crashes in Lawson | Blue Mountains Gazette (http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/2273067/plane-crashes-in-lawson/?cs=2062)

[ampclamp]

Cirrus I think. Came down under its 'chute. Interesting experience.

And https://twitter.com/weirderbetter

[bentleg]

According to that media report
"One witness also reported seeing a man eject from the plan before it went down". Must have been the cirrus launching the parachute

Great that there were no injuries.

[Bladeangle]

"One witness also reported seeing a man eject from the plan before it went down".

Ops normal...

Just looked up the rego, it appears to be a brand spanka, first rego in Jan 14.

Out of interest, anyone know what minimum height AGL the chutes are effective?

[ampclamp]

http://i.imgur.com/OV0kNlV.jpg

[garrya100]

It looks like the Cirrus demonstrator that was at WOI last weekend

[FokkerInYour12]

A bit of video on the guy's facebook page here of it, quite high, coming down with parachute deployed. Appears to be quite nose-down. I guess the parachute mechanism is quite rear of COG.

https://www.facebook.com/jugglingshop

[evilducky]

It looks like the Cirrus demonstrator that was at WOI last weekend

A very good demonstration indeed then :}

[ampclamp]

So .. what's happens if I pull this handle........:ooh:

[skkm]

Had just arrived from the States a little over 2 weeks ago. Very lucky the donk didn't quit then instead! :eek:

[VH-XXX]

skkm Had just arrived from the States a little over 2 weeks ago. Very lucky the donk didn't quit then instead!


So it FIRST arrived 2 weeks ago or it happened to fly back to the US some time between when I photographed this exact aircraft at the Tyabb airshow on 9th March 2014 and this weekend?

This is a Carbon model and a very expensive one or at least it was !

For the record skkm, new Cirrus are usually shipped to the dealers via sea container these days. The earlier generations including the early model glass versions circa 2004 were all flown here on their own wings as the early fuselage did not allow the wing to be detached or at least not seperately.

[sms777]

Love the madia again......"Cessna-type". They used to call every aircraft Cessna before.....I think the new generation is a bit more cautious or they slowly catching on that not every aircraft is made by Cessna.....:confused:

[garrya100]

According to Channel 7 the Cessna's engine exploded and the aircraft spiraled out of control.....the occupants of several houses were in mortal danger as the aircraft could have exploded at any time....as the vision they showed saw the Cirrus descending steadily under the parachute. Got to love the mainstream media, proof they have no idea what they're talking about.

[VH-XXX]

Out of interest, anyone know what minimum height AGL the chutes are effective?

2000ft is the minimum mentioned but a demonstration of 920 ft loss has been achieved.

[skkm]

XXX, apologies - it first arrived from the US - under its own steam with wings attached - in February, and has more recently returned from a slightly shorter over water jaunt to NZ.

[VH-XXX]

DX-QUVen9Ng

[27/09]

Can't these things glide. Gotta wonder, pulling the handle at the first sign of trouble. What ever happened to the good old forced landing.

Was it a mechanical failure or fuel exhaustion?

Also gotta wonder how insurance companies view the parachute brigade. Can the aircraft be repaired or is it a write off after the chutes been deployed?

I'm not suggesting this has happened here, but there seems to be quite a few examples of pilots getting in over their head and using the get out of jail card of pulling the handle. I strongly suspect some pilots are happy to tread where angels fear to tread as they know they can pull the pin so to speak and parachute to "safety".

[onetrack]

27/09 - Well, you have to admit, a parachute landing regardless of whether it was totally necessary, is a whole lot better than the usual ending, with aircraft and pax scattered over many metres and in many pieces.
Who cares if the Cirrus is a write-off? The insurance company owns it the minute you start heading back to terra firma with little hope of recovery - that's what insurance premiums are for. Far better to destroy a fully-replaceable aircraft than a number of irreplaceable pax.
The fact that there were no injuries is a massive cost-saving to the nation, just in itself. Injured pax cost hundreds of thousands each to transport, operate on, and rebuild their health. Deaths are even costlier - they are difficult to even quantify in full.

[Aussie Bob]

Can't these things glide. Gotta wonder, pulling the handle at the first sign of trouble. What ever happened to the good old forced landing.

My thoughts too, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you can purchase a Cirrus without this option. For that reason and the exorbitant cost of the mandatory 10 year service on this "safety" device, the Cirrus would be my very last choice in performance singles.

[VH-XXX]

27/09, go ahead, be my guest... so you could land an SR22 here over the fence at 75-80 knots?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawson+nsw&hl=en&ll=-33.723626,150.433044&spn=0.086093,0.208569&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.818029,106.787109&hnear=Lawson+New+South+Wales,+Australia&t=h&z=13

[RogerOveur]

Well said onetrack. Fully agree.

[VH-XXX]

The fact that there were no injuries is a massive cost-saving to the nation, just in itself. Injured pax cost hundreds of thousands each to transport, operate on, and rebuild their health. Deaths are even costlier - they are difficult to even quantify in full.

Figures have been thrown around for years that the average death can cost industry / community in excess of $1m by the time superannuation, insurances, court costs etc are paid out.

There were 4 adult male POB's in this crash. The aircraft was likely valued at circa AUD$700k.

[Avgas172]

Now if only I could fit one into my 172 for my rare flights over tiger country.

[Dash8capt]

Avgas I believe you can have an aftermarket BRS fitted to a 172 and other aircraft. CAPS has been deployed not fully but successfully at altitudes lower than that stated by XXX as well.

[Oracle1]

Given the twig that is a nose wheel and the speed across fence I think having the chute up your sleeve is a valuable thing

[morno]

When the engine quits over terrain like that, it's not time to be all macho and prove that you're a better pilot because you can glide an aircraft.

Pull the chute, who cares. The end result is more likely to be better than a forced landing in that sort of area.

morno

[Capt Fathom]

As long as the chute works!

Once you pull that handle, there is no going back! Not a decision I would like to face!

[TBM-Legend]

Chutes on light aircraft singles are like air bags in vehicles. Ideally don't leave home without them. Anything to prevent an off-field arrival in tiger country is a great bonus. They, like air bags and seat belts can't be the answer to every situation but today demonstrates a great result to those on-board!

It is also interesting that FAR's require chutes for people flying aircraft that are certified for aerobatics no matter what...

[Ultralights]

pulling the chute is a serious decision, you WILL get injured. and you WILL destroy the aircraft. if out west, and all goes quiet, nice big flat paddocks, nice straight farm roads, is the chute the best option? over tiger country?

from what i have heard, 1 passenger has a broken neck, and another a broken back.. and seeing the chute pulled on another cirrus years ago near Hoxton park, you will most likely, or certainly get seriously injured pulling the chute.. that aircraft was within 1 mile of Hoxton park aerodrome, and pulled the chute, both pilots were very seriously injured.

I just dont trust any aircraft that states in the SOPs for emergency procedures, to pull the chute as the only option..

[djpil]

... FAR's require chutes for people flying aircraft that are certified for aerobatics no matter what...Not true, certainly not USA FARs.

[walesregent]

Does anyone know the RoD with the chute fully deployed? I'm guessing the impact is still going to hurt.

[Jabawocky]

Was in Wanaka two weeks ago :-0

[VH-XXX]

900 - 1680fpm descent rate.

Equivalent to jumping from 7 feet.

News here reported one passenger had back pain, but nothing about broken backs or necks. Hopefully the news was correct.

I get the impression the tail snapped off when it hit the powerline as tail separation is not normally part of CAPS deployment...


So Jabba do you reckon this one had a TCM turbo versus the TAT one?

[yr right]

Yeah they can glide so long as you have somewhere to go to tiger country there if you did not notice
Cheers

[DUXNUTZ]

Wait. Cirrus have a full motion sim? Crikey.

[Ultralights]

so whats the expected G force on your body from a drop from 13 ft?

[VH-XXX]

Careful with your interpretations ...

First description,

A 7 ft jump, say off a low roof of a house onto your feet / butt / head.

Second description,

A 13 ft "drop" in the aircraft.

Not the same thing as the 13 ft drop includes crumpling undercarriage and honeycomb seats.

[onetrack]

Ultralights - Many people have survived falls where the forces on the body exceeded 150G and even 200G. It all depends on what you land on, how you land, and if anything is there to break your fall. See the "case studies" in the link below.

Mechanical analysis of survival in falls from heights of fifty to one hundred and fifty feet -- De Haven 6 (1): 62 -- Injury Prevention (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/1/62.3.long)

Remember the rear gunner who fell out of an aircraft without a parachute at 18,000' during WW2 and landed in pine trees and snowdrift, and survived with only a broken ankle??

Nicholas Alkemade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade)

In other cases, people have suffered brain damage and died merely from falling over and hitting their head on solid pavement - or died from balcony falls as small as 10'.

I was forced to jump out of a tree from 13' up as a 10 yr old, and I'm still here to tell you about it. In fact, I never even suffered any jarring - and not even a scratch.

These blokes in the Cirrus had powerlines and trees to break their fall, and they were sitting in comfortable seats. Any physical damage they may have incurred would more than likely have been through getting thrown about inside the cabin as they touched down in a pretty uneven manner.

The media stated only one pax was transported to hospital "for observation" - thus indicating some possible concussion.

[ButFli]

Many people have survived falls where the forces on the body exceeded 150G and even 200G. It all depends on what you land on,

Hang on a minute, 200G is 200G no matter what you land on.

Landing on something soft is better than landing on something hard at the same velocity because the soft landing spreads deceleration over a longer time, thereby reducing the peak force experienced.

[onetrack]

Butfli - Sorry, I could have worded that paragraph better. I wasn't suggesting that you could land on a pile of feathers and sustain 200G forces on your body, and then land on rocks with a 200G force and suffer vastly different results.
What I did mean, was that what you land on, will alter the amount of G's your body sustains, according to the decelerative ability of the material you land on.

For those who reckon they could have flown to a satisfactory landing where this bloke ended up - here's the address where they landed.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/33+Sayers+St/@-33.715106,150.425161,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6b1265122b95e921:0xf493898427f24a08

These blokes are pretty lucky, they only just missed a monstrous HT powerline. I'll hazard a guess that HT powerline is 66kV or 132kV.
I don't know how much control the pilot still had when descending under the 'chute, I'll wager it wasn't anywhere near as much as he would have liked!

[gerry111]

Let's just hope the Cirrus guys weren't running LOP and one or more of the clys failed as a result.. :E

[jdeakin]

Can't these things glide. Gotta wonder, pulling the handle at the first sign of trouble. What ever happened to the good old forced landing. My thoughts too, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you can purchase a Cirrus without this option. For that reason and the exorbitant cost of the mandatory 10 year service on this "safety" device, the Cirrus would be my very last choice in performance singles. You're correct, you can't buy a Cirrus without the chute.

In the early days, I had my fun with the idea along with almost everyone else. As experience built, I got a lot quieter. We used to call 'em "Righteous Pulls" vs "Non-Righteous Pulls," and there were some where even I would have been glad to have the option. Nowadays, I kinda don't even think much about it.

But almost all of us pilots miss the major point of the chute. Wives, significant others, kids, and passengers. Whether the chute is worth it or not, for the non-flying public it makes perfect sense. You can talk 'till you're blue in the face, but these people are AFRAID to fly. They are SCARED on every trip, and some will not fly GA at all. I know half dozen couples where the wife takes the kids, drives to Grandma's house, while Dad flies in solitary splendor. Some may like it, but many do not, and it sometimes causes Dad to sell a beloved airplane - or not buy one the first place.

These people MAY tolerate an unneeded twin, but darn near every one of them will go for the airplane with the chute. For MANY, it will be the difference between having a Cirrus and not having an airplane at all. It's not logical, but it's undeniable.

The Klapmeiers were absolute geniuses to dream this concept up!

The early ones came only NA, until George Braly (TAT) developed the TAT TN and people started taking new airplanes directly to Ada for the conversion. Didn't take too long before Cirrus got the picture, and in cooperation with TAT, started putting the Turbo as a factory option. Then they switched to the factory TC engine, for a bit less money, a sweetheart deal with CMI to get the business. Also pulled a very dirty deal on TAT. Not sure what it did to the end sales price, but whatever it was, it was a bum decision, in my opinion, for technical reasons alone.

I got to fly one with George Braly, and liked it well enough. Performance is about the same as my TAT TNIO-550 Bonanza, a tribute to the "slickness" of the Cirrus, AND the little-known fact that a retracting gear doesn't necessarily give as much increased speed as you'd think. Bonanza carries a lot more weight and pax, of course, depending on the model.

Beautiful visibility, and a nice cockpit, though some find the seats a little uncomfortable. Price is not far off that of a new Bonanza.

Don't put it in the water with the chute, if you have a choice! The LG is part of the "crush" that makes for less impact on the bodies.

I'd still buy the Bo', but I wouldn't turn my nose up at the Cirrus.

Best...
John Deakin

[thborchert]

Funny, how someone can first state "pulled at the first sign of trouble" and then add "no idea what happened". 'Nuff said, I guess.

>>Don't put it in the water with the chute, if you have a choice! The LG is part of the "crush" that makes for less impact on the bodies<<

Actually, the number of water landings under CAPS is now high enough to say this doesn't seem to be true. In the first ever water CAPS landing the pilot hurt his back (but not enough to keep him from almost swimming to shore AND go skiing six weeks later or so). However, it is now believed that might have been due to his trying to move away from an industrial facility he thought he was coming down on. He applied full power, which might have induced a turning or sideways motion (it won't move the parachute/plane ensemble much laterally, as is now clear). However, in all other water landings, there does not seem to have been an impact harder enough to matter. This is a good example: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2012/01/09/early-reflections-on-caps-pull-32-by-dick-mcglaughlin-in-the-bahamas.aspx

[jimjim1]

I happened to notice this.

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA012
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 06, 2012 in Birmingham, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/25/2013
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N80KW


2006 Cirrus SR22 N80KW S/N 1879 | Sky Way Aircraft (http://skywayaircraft.com/?p=573)
Subsequently for sale - Price: $175,000.00

2006 CIRRUS SR22 N80KW S/N 1879

Maintenance: Annual Inspection C/W 7/19/2013; Installed new CAOS line cutters; 6/2013, Installed new Parachute, Rocket motor, expires 6/2019;

Damage History 7/19/2013

Extra's : Factory Air condition; TKS Deicing; New CAPS Ballistic Parachute System 2013; Rosen Sun Visors; Wing Strobes; Amsafe airbag seat belts; Elect pitch Trim.


Cirrus SR22 post CAPS deployment - YouTube
Video by passerby after landing.

[Kharon]

Just a random question, begged out of sheer ignorance of the aircraft type or it's operational envelope. On the satellite map, there is a handy golf course not to far away. Allowing for a reasonable glide ratio (and enough height), could it be possible or practical to set off in that direction, standard forced landing technique and pop the chute 'overhead', hopefully landing mostly in one piece on the 13th tee? Not saying there was enough time or space to do this; no data. Just curious about 'technique' that's all.

[VH-XXX]

Jimjim1, contrary to the post earlier in this thread, activation of the CAPS does not automatically result in a written-off aircraft. It is all subject to economics and damage obviously. Cirrus claim that the aircraft *can* be repaired and indeed as you see above it can, new caps, new lines glassed in etc. It all depends what else you broke during deployment.

The motor vehicle industry has statutory write-offs whereas the aviation industry doesn't.


Kharon - they are no different to any other aircraft really, circa 1530kg's MTOW, 4pob and over the fence at circa 75 knots subject to piloting, rough strip rating almost as good as a 172 but certainly not an Airvan.

[Neville Nobody]

Seemed to be coming down fairly slowly and still had the strobes on.

[VH-XXX]

NN, right you are, it certainly does look like a slow descent and I would argue quite less than even 1000fpm.


Am I mistaken or is this not the SECOND Cirrus demonstrator aircraft in Australia to meet its' maker via CAPS deployment? I'm thinking Hamilton Island engine failure landing under CAPS in water with Maltby at the controls.

[AusFlygal]

If I had an engine failure in something with a chute especially over the Blue Mountains, I would not hesitate to deploy it. It's tiger country out there, not very many options for a forced landing so I'm pretty sure they didn't have much choice.

[bentleg]

N802DK is for sale


http://cirrussydney.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/N802DK-inventory-PDF.pdf (http://cirrussydney.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/N802DK-inventory-PDF.pdf)


Will they take less than USD713,000 + GST for it now?

[VH-XXX]

Interesting note in the additional options:

"CAPS Bigger Chute and Rocket."

That might explain why its' descent rate was seemingly very low.

I note it also says "Carbon Appearance." Certainly fooled me, thought they had a higher carbon content than just for show. I was suspect when the MTOW and payload figures hadn't changed.

[Best Rate]

Maybe the "bigger chute" (& rocket) in the sales description had something to do with the seemingly low-ish RoD??

And they obviously pressed the "blue level button" to get such a nice level descent..... :ok:

Great result all round - bet the property owner was looking for a reason to upgrade that fence..

BR

[Old Akro]

so whats the expected G force on your body from a drop from 13 ft?

Its not the drop that gets you - its the landing!

Landing gear crush and other deformation might make it gentler than you expect.

Given that deploying the chute trashes the aircraft, the question is whether you would be better off just doing a forced landing.

[onetrack]

Old Akro - I don't think there's anything to be questioned. 85 totally successful parachute landings without a fatality is a whole lot better record, than the number of fatalities from crash landings in the same time frame, without a parachute.

[Homesick-Angel]

Let's say a cirrus has an EFATO and the pilot doesn't have time to deploy. Can anyone tell me what the danger is with these chutes should you approach a crashed aircraft (possibly on fire) under three circumstances? Is there some sort of fail safe to stop deployment on the ground?

[Pace]

Old Akro

With a good landing site of course it's better to force land !
that presumes you are well trained current and practice the things!

The difference is that while the aircraft is flying it's under your control as well as well as going where you want it to even
If that is slap bang into a building ! It's still under your control

With the chute out the aircraft is not under your control and in 30 to 50 kt winds that will be the horizontal impact speed!

Also one day a cirrus will come down on top of an innocent bystander on the ground so we have that to consider!

That is why I would be very selective over its use as it is not an answer to everything and should not be considered as a replacement for basic flying skills

Pace

[Old Akro]

85 totally successful parachute landings without a fatality is a whole lot better record, than the number of fatalities from crash landings in the same time frame, without a parachute.

There is a logic flaw in this figure. The chute is frequently pulled for engine failures and similar issues. To compare like with like you need to count all the conventional aircraft that have had mechanical failures and landed happily.

There have been plenty of conventional aircraft that have landed in suburban streets with a happy ending.

And I have a dim recollection that there has been 1 fatality from a Cirrus chute deployment. I am sure someone will correct me. Plus, the overall Cirrus accident / fatality rate is a bit higher than its comparative conventional aircraft.

[Jetjr]

Was in SMH this morning that before CAPs fitted, Cirrus fatality rate was well above average, now slightly below
Any truth?

[VH-XXX]

As I understand it, Cirrus has always had CAPS.

What has reduced fatalities is the level of education now provided to Cirrus owners and pilots; it is well documented.

[onetrack]

Pace:
Also one day a cirrus will come down on top of an innocent bystander on the ground so we have that to consider!Pace, would you like to do some calculations as to the chances of that event actually happening? I'll wager the odds are considerably longer than the odds of being hit by a meteorite. :)

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Hi homesick,
I think you would find that most fire services would not have a clue when it comes to rescue of aircraft with caps ( definitely the case with my local services)
There is a first responder instruction list from the caps website, from memory you have to physically cut the actuation cable at the baggage door
with special cutters if possible.
I read Recently in the US a cirrus pilot pulled his caps handle only for the rocket to fire but did not pull the chute out, he still managed to land but with a 30 ft cord and spent rocket casing dangling behind. Inadvertent flight into IMC I think it was

[Flying Binghi]

...don't think there's anything to be questioned. 85 totally successful parachute landings without a fatality...


Whata bout this one...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gf8DYXUOai8








.

[onetrack]

Binghi - That's a very sobering video - but isn't it an excellent reminder about "situational awareness" (read - other aircraft in your vicinity)?
No-one is going to survive a mid-air that results in a fireball - parachute or no parachute. :(

Survivors of midair plane crash horrified - People: Tales of survival - TODAY.com (http://www.today.com/id/35311420/ns/today-today_news/t/survivors-midair-plane-crash-horrified/#.U29IN4GSwgQ)

[Arnold E]

No-one is going to survive a mid-air that results in a fireball - parachute or no parachute

Its amazing that the parachute lines didn't burn through

[thborchert]

With a good landing site of course it's better to force land !
that presumes you are well trained current and practice the things!

No, that presumes you can really sensibly judge landing sites from 2000 feet above. Statitics clearly show you can't. Well, YOU, of course, can, being the superior aviator we know you as. But Joe Average Pilot can't. I can't, for sure.

You can make up hypotheticals all day long. So far, the numbers are quite cleary against you. But you knew that...

[thborchert]

Binghi,

it is believed the chute was triggered by the mid-air crash, not by the occupants who died instantaneously.

[Jabawocky]

Gerry, at the risk of taking the bait here, I think you mean at rich of peak mate. Highest CHT's and cylinder pressure occurs at peak and up to 200F rich of peak.

Mark, just for accuracy sake, this occurs at aroun 35-50dF ROP, past 75 it starts dropping.

:ok:

[27/09]

VH-XXX: 27/09, go ahead, be my guest... so you could land an SR22 here over the fence at 75-80 knots?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawso...ralia&t=h&z=13

Before making my post I did have a look on G E. There's a pretty handy looking golf course nearby.

Yep, there's a bit of tiger country around. If I used the chute I'd be concerned about ending up in a location where it was very difficult for SAR to get to. I'd rather have some control over where I ended up.

While I don't think it was the case in this incident I still stand by my comments about "safety" features like the BRS system on the Cirrus giving many pilots the confidence to go where they might not normally do so. To illustrate my point I can think of some VFR loss of control and CFIT accidents where pilots probably pressed on poor wx on using GPS to navigate by when they wouldn't have done so with out GPS. That doesn't make GPS a bad thing to use, but common sense needs to apply.

I'm not saying a BRS system doesn't have it's very real benefits just that it gives some people a false sense of security. I'd be willing to bet the incident rate is higher in such aircraft.

[bogdantheturnipboy]

"What happened to the forced landing?"

Are people serious? Have you been to the Blue Mountains.
There is practically NOWHERE to do a forced landing.

I think some people's egos over take their brain capacity sometimes.

[desmotronic]

Cirrus is required to have a BRS for certification because there is no other spin recovery. The rest is all propaganda.

[nitpicker330]

Knowing my luck I'd pull the Shute and end up landing on high tension power lines or on a railway track.............:eek:

[VH-XXX]

because there is no other spin recovery

For your average Cirrus owner...

There are plenty of pilots reading this that could arrest a spin in a Cirrus.

However, correct you are, that is why it's there - certification.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Desmotronic:
Close, but not quite correct. There is a bit more to it;
When the Cirrus SR20 was first certified, the FAA accepted the wing design (stall inhibitor features) as well as the chute was considered to be an equivalent level of safety with regard to spin recovery.
EASA did not buy into that position and required additional testing from Cirrus which (from memory only - Flying Mag feature?) involved 60 or so spin recovery tests as well as a POH change.
Therefore, the Cirrus did actually comply with spin testing due to EASA demands, however, the POH still requires the chute to be used as the 'official' sole means of spin recovery.

[Andy_RR]

So, is anyone experimenting with steerable CAPS systems? Surely given the technology in today's jump parachutes and paragliders etc, it would make some sense to use the technology to improve the glide ratio rather than just opting for an uncontrolled, straight-down approach...?

[VH-XXX]

I was thinking about this earlier keeping in mind the old fashioned round Army parachutes which I didn't think were steerable.

Then I found this:

How to Steer a Parachute | eHow (http://www.ehow.com/how_8730364_steer-parachute.html)

Tips & Warnings

Round parachutes are usually not steerable and you have little input on the direction of flight.
--------------

To turn that sized chute I can imagine you would need to pull the "toggles" quite a distance which wouldn't easily be achieved. Hooking it up to the rudder wouldn't give enough throw unless the steering lines were geared.

Interesting question though... I would think it would add complexity that could cause it to all go horribly wrong.

[Andy_RR]

If you kept enough forward speed and hung the airframe with a suitable alpha, you could pull the right toggle/cord by manipulating the original airframe control surfaces and changing the attitude of the airframe relative to the chute, perhaps?

[onetrack]

nitpicker330 - You'd have to be completely out of luck to land exactly on a railway track, the odds would be very low indeed.
Powerlines do pose a bigger threat, because there's a lot more of them than railway tracks.

One of the advantages of HT lines is that the circuit breakers are very swift in operation, and of very low amperage (about 5 amps for a 132kV line).
However, the initial high voltage zap through a human conductor, before the circuit breakers kick in, is where the damage occurs.
The circuit breakers on HT lines are designed to prevent system damage, not save lives, as RCD's are designed to do.

The still-intact aircraft cabin in a parachute landing on HT powerlines, would prevent occupants from being zapped with initial high current levels - unlike a regular forced landing, where the cabin is usually severely damaged, and the occupants can be exposed directly to still-live powerlines.

LT powerlines actually pose a bigger threat in crashes, because it takes a higher level of short-circuitry to make pole fuses burn out.
That's why you must always treat downed LT powerlines as live, until you are certain they have been de-energised.

[VH-XXX]

I chuckled when I read the AVWEB headline, I thought they were going to say he did it as a demonstration !


Cirrus Salesman Pulls Chute During Demo Flight

http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/325/cirruspullaus.jpg

Cirrus Salesman Pulls Chute During Demo Flight - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus-Salesman-Pulls-Chute-During-Demo-Flight221997-1.html)

[peterc005]

Any word on why the engine stopped?

Fuel, mechanical failure?

[Atlas Shrugged]

If I had an engine failure in something with a chute especially over the Blue Mountains, I would not hesitate to deploy it. It's tiger country out there, not very many options for a forced landing so I'm pretty sure they didn't have much choice.

So you would, without any hesitation, just simply pull the ripcord and forget about what mayhem and carnage you might cause from your totally random and uncontrolled impact in a semi-populated area??

Wow....:ugh::ugh:

[Aussie Bob]

I don't think that is what he is saying ....

[onetrack]

Personally, I'd prefer to try escaping a Cirrus coming down on a 'chute in a strong wind - than trying to avoid one coming down at 100kts or more towards me, in a conventional style of crash landing.

1700fpm descent is 31kmh (19.3mph) - and even with a 30kmh wind at ground level (that's pretty breezy), the descent is going to be around an angle of 45 degrees, and probably still less than 40kmh travel speed.

In case no-one noticed in the news reports, there were a group of people gathered for a "home open" real estate inspection, who all scattered when they sighted this Cirrus coming down. No-one has reported being hit by it.
They did report that they were unsure of exactly where it was going to land.
However, they also had time to vacate the LZ because of the relatively low landing speed.

[Flying Ted]

At 1700ft/m and sudden impact I calculate it as being 23 g acting on the aircraft. Load on body would be less than that. Not an engineer so may have that wrong.

I am an engineer and I think you are wrong Mark.

Assuming the plane is coming down at 1700 ft/min or 520m/sec and if we assume it starts to decelerate 0.75m from the ground then I calculate you experience 5G (or a deceleration rate of 50m/s/s). I base the 0.75m on a rough estimate of the distance between ground and bottom for cockpit. For the individuals concerned it would be a little less as they have an extra 0.3m of seat slowing them up. Either way it is quite survivable.

Like others I'd like to to know why the engine stopped. The other recent example of a BRS operation was due to the pilot flying for 2 1/2 hours with low oil pressure. I hope the chutes are not encouraging poor judgement.

[Ultralights]

considering the terrain in that area, the chute was the better option, unless sure of making Katoomba airstrip. sure, there are a few roads, but lined with light poles, wires, and rail line infrastructure and trees, lots of trees. even after the bushfires that go through there regularly, you think they might consider trimming back a few..
i even get a little worried in my savannah crossing the blue mountains west of here, and i can put it down in 50 to 60 mtrs! then again, if i hold it in a deep stall, it will descend at no more than 1500ft, min. its why its called an aluminium parachute.

[Capt Fathom]

The biggest trap here is not to just blatantly pop the chute because it is there!

The manufacturer is trying to sell airframes. It is a powerful marketing tool.
The chute is not a get out of gaol free card.

It is just another tool at the pilots' disposal. At the end of the day, the PIC must decide on what they feel is the safest course of action.

[Wally Mk2]

'Fathy' couldn't agree more there, the chute is just another part of the airframe that has a safety element to it (as well as the obvious commercial advantage) allowing further options (not the only one) if a forced Ldg is req'd.


Wmk2

[thborchert]

Andy_RR

Posts: 657
So, is anyone experimenting with steerable CAPS systems? Surely given the technology in today's jump parachutes and paragliders etc, it would make some sense to use the technology to improve the glide ratio rather than just opting for an uncontrolled, straight-down approach...?


No offense, but you guys crack me up. Have a look at accident statistics. Bad things happen when pilots are allowed to steer. Not when they are prevented from it. The oh-so uncontrolled, straight-down approach has worked every time. Why change it? To make real men (tm) feel good?

[Andy_RR]

Oh right. So your real men (tm) are allowed to steer at 140kts, but not at something like 30kts under a canopy?

You have the imagination of a dead ferret, if you can't figure out what advantages forward speed and control might offer.

[thborchert]

You have the imagination of a dead ferret, if you can't figure out what advantages forward speed and control might offer.

Here's what I can imagine with my feeble dead-ferret mind: If a pilot has an emergency dire enough to make him pull that chute, the likelihood he will be able to calmly steer some contraption in a sensible way is low.

Here's where I don't need any imagination, because these are the facts:

- the chute as it is works perfectly in all conceivable aspects of its operation.
- the reasons for chute pulls go far beyond engine failure.
- pilots are the overwhelmingly major cause of accidents. Thus, keeping pilots in control in case of an accident may be a bad idea. The success of the chute (and ejection seats in the military, I might add) certainly points in that direction. That's what my dead-ferret self was trying to convey: We aren't the super-heroes we like to think we are.

[Trojan1981]

We aren't the super-heroes we like to think we are.

Speak for yourself :ok:

I was thinking about this earlier keeping in mind the old fashioned round Army parachutes which I didn't think were steerable.

Then I found this:

How to Steer a Parachute | eHow

Tips & Warnings

Round parachutes are usually not steerable and you have little input on the direction of flight.
--------------

To turn that sized chute I can imagine you would need to pull the "toggles" quite a distance which wouldn't easily be achieved. Hooking it up to the rudder wouldn't give enough throw unless the steering lines were geared.

Interesting question though... I would think it would add complexity that could cause it to all go horribly wrong.


These days the standard SL parachutes are squarish, but I assume you mean the old, round T-10 parachute. There is a steerable version called the MC-1, which has panels removed from the rear of the canopy. This gives 8 knots forward speed and a limited amount of steerability for a very small increase in descent rate. I would say that any level of controllability would serve to limit further risk of death or serious injury. If people get it wrong, so be it, but at least they would have limited options.

[thborchert]

Quote:
We aren't the super-heroes we like to think we are.
Speak for yourself :ok:

I certainly did.

[Atlas Shrugged]

You have the imagination of a dead ferret, if you can't figure out what advantages forward speed and control might offer.

No, mate. It's not that. It is merely a simple thing called AIRMANSHIP.

Go look up the meaning.

And then *&%# off!

[dubbleyew eight]

I'm waiting for the day one of these 'chutes gets popped during a BFR.

...truely I am.:E

[Andy_RR]

No, mate. It's not that. It is merely a simple thing called AIRMANSHIP.

Go look up the meaning.

And then *&%# off!

Beg yer pardon...? What did I miss or do to deserve that response?

[Andy_RR]

Here's what I can imagine with my feeble dead-ferret mind: If a pilot has an emergency dire enough to make him pull that chute, the likelihood he will be able to calmly steer some contraption in a sensible way is low.


Pilots are trained in forced-landing techniques for the 99% of the fleet that don't have BRS. Many of the BRS-less forced-landing attempts are pulled off with reasonable results. Many glider pilots manage an unpowered outlanding on a regular basis without killing themselves or destroying their aircraft. The evidence to support your claim just doesn't exist!


Here's where I don't need any imagination, because these are the facts:

- the chute as it is works perfectly in all conceivable aspects of its operation.
- the reasons for chute pulls go far beyond engine failure.
- pilots are the overwhelmingly major cause of accidents. Thus, keeping pilots in control in case of an accident may be a bad idea. The success of the chute (and ejection seats in the military, I might add) certainly points in that direction.


It works perfectly in the same way a Fokker Dr.1 worked perfectly. I'm guessing Martin-Baker didn't need to move on from their first generation bang seat either...?

Seriously, the BRS works well, but it's pot-luck what you land on top of and what the end result might be. They're also heavy, or, put it another way, if you could increase the effective wing-loading by allowing controlled forward speed, they could be made lighter and as a result be made available and suitable for even more aircraft. Progress be damned, though!

[Pearly White]

Do PPruners think this incident has improved Cirrus reputation in the marketplace of potential Cirrus buyers, or detracted from it?

Does the demonstration of the BRS over difficult terrain confirm that such an incident is survivable make you want one more?

Or does the fact the engine failed make you want one less?

I note this was a very, very new aircraft, initially granted CofA in January, presumably shipped out, not flown out, to Australia. So must have had very few hours on clock.

[EclipseN99XG]

Quoting flying_ted:
-------
I am an engineer and I think you are wrong Mark.

Assuming the plane is coming down at 1700 ft/min or 520m/sec and if we assume it starts to decelerate 0.75m from the ground then I calculate you experience 5G (or a deceleration rate of 50m/s/s). I base the 0.75m on a rough estimate of the distance between ground and bottom for cockpit. For the individuals concerned it would be a little less as they have an extra 0.3m of seat slowing them up. Either way it is quite survivable.
-------
Probably you meant 520m/min. Or 8.64 m/sec

[EclipseN99XG]

Pearly White

I note this was a very, very new aircraft, initially granted CofA in January, presumably shipped out, not flown out, to Australia. So must have had very few hours on clock.

This plane had been flown to Australia.
I know the ferry team.

[27/09]

Do PPruners think this incident has improved Cirrus reputation in the marketplace of potential Cirrus buyers, or detracted from it? I'm not sure I'd ever be a potential Cirrus owner but this incident hasn't improved or detracted from Cirrus's reputation IMO. Personally I think they they are an over hyped piece of plastic.

Does the demonstration of the BRS over difficult terrain confirm that such an incident is survivable make you want one more? No, I think BRS is also over rated.

Or does the fact the engine failed make you want one less?No, I'd be pretty interested to know why the engine stopped, generally there's a very good reason and it's usually human related

I note this was a very, very new aircraft, initially granted CofA in January, presumably shipped out, not flown out, to Australia. So must have had very few hours on clock. I'd say this engine was outside the infant mortality period. Refer to my comment above.

Well maintained engines very, very, very rarely stop suddenly and usually there are advanced warnings, like low oil pressure, high temps, rough running. The most common cause is fuel, not enough, wrong type, contamination, poor fuel system management, all factors that the pilot has complete control over.

[27/09]

Or does the fact the engine failed make you want one less?
The engine didn't fail and it wasn't fuel exhaustion.

Interesting comments.

So why the need to use the BRS?

[VH-XXX]

Mark__ said: The engine didn't fail and it wasn't fuel exhaustion.

Witnesses said the engine stopped, was re-started and stopped again ( I think ), but they were on the ground, so who knows... like an aerobatic aircraft in a routine, when the throttle is pulled, you'd think it stopped.

[27/09]

Perhaps a play on words.

Fuel Starvation V Fuel Exhaustion.

Fuel starvation - fuel on board but empty tank selected

Fuel exhaustion - No fuel on on board

Perhaps fuel starvation was the problem

[Creampuff]

Demonstrating a stall with potential client ...Not over that tiger country, surely. :eek:

Surely. :eek::eek:

PS Mark: Be very careful, the original and each changed version of your post will be copied somewhere.

[gileraguy]

I think it would be interesting to hear the thoughts about the use of the BRS from someone who has actually been faced with the situation of a forced landing off an airfield.

[VH-XXX]

I think it would be interesting to hear the thoughts about the use of the BRS from someone who has actually been faced with the situation of a forced landing off an airfield.

Been there, done that. The first time I was already under a parachute (formerly a powered one) so it was a no-brainer :)

Second one was over an area with good landing options, but that was stressful enough as it was. Over tiger country I wouldn't hesitate, you don't have any other options. Self preservation kicks in and you do what you need to and use all avaialble options.

It's an interesting point to ponder as I now know of three aircraft that crashed with fatalities that HAD BRS fitted, but they never used it.

One had landing options, one had limited options and the other had no options for a safe landing (had airframe damage)... but it was left untouched.

[Creampuff]

Hmmmmm

Methinks the mysterious ‘Mark__’ might be having some difficult conversations with insurers and regulators.

[VH-XXX]

I can assure you that Mark__ is / was not the pilot :ok:

[Creampuff]

That doesn't mean he won't be having some difficult conversations with insurers and regulators. ;)

[Rbwoonton]

I saw this at north shore aeroclub, NZ in April..

Bugger :(

[Creampuff]

It's because 'Mike__' asserted, in this thread, that the aircraft did not suffer fuel exhaustion or starvation or any kind of engine or other mechanical failure, but instead that the pilot was demonstrating stall recovery. Unsuccessfully.

Then the posts disappeared.

The insurers and the regulators will be extraordinarily interested to know whether 'Mike__' was merely a troll spreading ignorant speculation, or someone who was on board the aircraft or someone who has spoken to someone who was on board the aircraft.

Given the disappearance of the posts, the conversation will be difficult either way.

I have made no comment about the use of the chute.

I expressed extraordinary alarm at 'Mike__'s now-deleted assertion about the circumstances that led to the use of the chute. For the pilot's sake, I hope 'Mike__' is an uninformed troll.

[VH-XXX]

It is a rumour network after all...

Let's say hypothetically that it was a botched stall recovery, so be it, there are multiple passengers as witness so it's not like the pilot is going to try and cover it up. Good work that they are all safe and well. If it was that, the insurance company are hardly going to blame the pilot.

As I hear far too often at work.... It is what it is.

PS: it is widely known what happened in this incident. Dig harder and you shall find ;)

[Creampuff]

Is a deliberate stall a manoeuvre that one is allowed to do, in that aircraft, with passengers on board? Lots of contracts of insurance have exclusion clauses ...

Is a deliberate stall, in that aircraft, something sensibly done over that terrain?

Is an ostensibly experienced and competent pilot's inability to recover an aircraft from a stall something that might be of interest to the certifying authority?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[VH-XXX]

I can't see anything in the regs about the legal number of passengers when stalling. True about terrain though however nobody ever sets out to deliberately crash when they get up in the morning. Remember the terrain is irrelevant in the Cirrus because spin recovery is via CAPS. I would offer the ocean as an exclusion to that; perhaps don't try stalling one over water.

[Creampuff]

I hope everything turns out hunky dory. :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

Creampuff

Being a Mormon wouldn't you have rather had nil deployed chutes so that you could pothumously baptise them?

It is an 'N' registered aircraft, maybe their afterlife insurance was covered prior to the stall demo.

[gerry111]

Lead Balloon,

With the greatest of respect, I think that your comments are rather silly.

I don't see how one's religious beliefs or otherwise are relevent to this aviation forum.

But I'm happy to tell you that I'm an athiest.

Creampuff may be an athiest too, for all that I know? But that is none of my business nor yours.

[bentleg]

ATSB short investigation report has issued
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4920573/ao-2014-083_final.pdf

[spinex]

I'm guessing the "front seat passenger" won't be buying a Cirrus then?

Thanks for the link bentleg, makes for interesting reading, not the best day in the office:sad:. Couple of things stood out, there seemed to be some confusion about the respective roles of the front seat occupants and quite a lot was made by the pax of the lack of any safety briefing. I guess you carry on as you were taught, but I am not a fan of some airline style spiel covering everything from flight level to which field you're going to park the thing in if the music stops after takeoff. The basics are important though, including making it clear who is PIC in these circumstances.

That red handle in the Cirrus creates a bit of an issue too, whilst it would be nice for a pax to be able to save everyone if the pilot keels over, it would be a tad disappointing to have someone yank it just because unexpected turbulence frightened them.

[Ultralights]

The PIC then took control of the aircraft and stated ‘watch this’
well, theres your problem...

As the rate of rotation to the right slowed, the passenger in the front seat felt the PIC apply right
rudder, and the aircraft again accelerated rotating to the right

this is why i think every instructor should be taught spin recovery techniques.. not just the incipient stage, but from a fully developed stabilised spin.

from the POH.
The aircraft is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery
characteristics

this is why im not a fan of the cirrus..

[truthinbeer]

"Watch this". Ominous words....:eek::eek::eek:

"The aircraft was overhead high voltage powerlines..." Front seat passenger must have felt relief to have narrowly avoided death when the CAPS operated only to be presented with it again.

[Victa Bravo]

The aircraft was N registered.

Was the Salesman from the land of the free?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Looks like a right royal f@#k-up to me! :E

[Andy_RR]

I'm trying to work out why applying power is a good spin recovery technique?

An altogether very embarrassing lack of skills on display, but I suppose embarrassment by CAPS is better than death (I'm sorry)

[Lookleft]

Because the salesman proved that any idiot can fly a Cirrus and live to tell the tale, did the customer buy one?

[Pannier]

The two passengers on board (LHS and rear passenger) were mightily unimpressed as the salesman demonstrated (unasked) an accelerated stall too low over rough country that also had houses et al (and a few steep 200m cliffs nearby).

The sound of the salesman saying "I'm sorry" did not sit well.

They have been restrained about their experiences so far but expect the matter to get more publicity in the weeks ahead.

The prospect of being fried on a 132 KVa power line did not appeal.

At least the old lady whose fence they neatly crushed offered them a cup of tea!

Overall, a very casual outing that led to all sorts of threats, "unintended aircraft states" and general mayhem.

When the chute fully inflated, they were 4.2 seconds from a possible fiery death.

One commented in a splendid example of gallows humour that at least he could have cut out the middleman at the crematorium.

I wonder what steps, if any, Cirrus (since he was a Cirrus "designated salesman" acting at the request of a senior member of the Cirrus Australian sales team in an N register aircraft) have taken to protect their rear, if any?

Perhaps some cockamamie Air Law 101 (fail) excuse will be advanced?

The ATSB report is delightfully restrained, isn't it? He will develop protocols!

[truthinbeer]

Can't imagine it will help sales when people read the aircraft is not certified for a recovery from a spin other than by pulling the red handle.
What's wrong with Cirrus pilots? - Air Facts Journal (http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/)
And from the Cirrus site - Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin) (http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx)
"In short, modern general aviation airplanes are not certified for spins,
nor are pilots equipped to recover them."

[The Banjo]

Page 4:

"The maximum vertical speed reached about 14,000 feet per minute prior to the CAPS deployment".

Now that is scary........:eek:

[peterc005]

Is it the aft CoG or the small rudder that prevents a Cirrus recovering from a spin?

[Wally Mk2]

I look at the design of these plastic toy like high performance planes as being sitting precariously on a balance bar. In order to get the high efficiency they spruke about IE speed etc out of these sleek airframes something has gotta be sacrificed, stability & simple handing, both left well behind on the designers drawing board in pursuit of getting in their eyes a better product out there to sell.
Remember these manufacturers are commercial company's, they are not there for purely yr enjoyment they are targeting a specific market (wealthy A/C drivers) & they are there solely to make money.


Wmk2

[criticalmass]

At a presentation I attended given by the Australian Cirrus agents some months ago it was explicitly stated the Cirrus can recover from a spin without using the CAPS, but only if there is sufficient altitude.

That's the key thing - sufficient altitude. In the case of the Blue Mountains accident, there wasn't sufficient altitude, and the only way to save the situation was to fire the 'chute.

Result? Three people walked away alive, rather than being carried away, dead and charred, in body-bags.

The lack of altitude in this case was no fault of the Cirrus aircraft.

We were also told at the presentation that in training the Cirrus instructors use the simulator to put potential Cirrus purchasers (many of whom are highly-experienced pilots) into situations from which recovery is not possible, and these highly experienced pilots repeatedly wind themselves and the simulator into the ground, rather than firing the 'chute.

The habit of flying the aircraft "as far into the crash as possible" (attributed to Bob Hoover) is so deeply ingrained that the idea of reaching up for the firing-handle and pulling it just doesn't seem to occur...until the pilot has crashed the sim a few times, and realises that the 'chute would have saved them. When the sim is put into an irrecoverable situation and the instructor sees the student's hand reaching for the firing-handle, then the message is starting to sink in.

The Cirrus requires a major adjustment to pilot mind-set. It is a matter of re-educating these pilots to use the aircraft parachute system before the situation becomes so bad that even the 'chute is not going to save them because it is being operated outside its design limits. If used within its design limits, the CAPS does save lives, and Cirrus has the statistics to prove this. Go ahead, ring them up and ask them. Ask them how many people have survived parachute deployments on the Cirrus when the 'chute was operated within its operational envelope. Ask them what their injuries were for those incidents.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the Cirrus? Probably not. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with many of the pilots who fly it? Quite probably, yes there is.

It is not for the low-hour GA pilot, for a start. It is not a "seat-of-the-pants" aircraft. It has to be flown "by the numbers", the same as any similar high-performance single-engine aircraft. Like any other IFR-equipped aircraft it requires a pilot to be current and up-to-date on IFR techniques to be successfully and safely operated in IFR flight.

Some aircraft are designed to be deliberately stalled, and some are not. I personally think the de-emphasis on stall and spin-recovery training is not a good thing in GA. Even so, there are many GA training aircraft with adverse stall and spin characteristics (Chipmunk and Tomahawk, for example); aircraft which you did not intentionally get into a stalled or spinning situation at low altitude.

The debate about whether it is better to have a training aircraft with a benign stall or a sudden onset with rapid wing-drop has been raging for decades now, each side arguing the their case with the ferocity of wizened clerics arguing an abstruse point of canon-law. However, the Cirrus (or Lancair, or Columbia, etc) are not training aircraft, and therefore not designed to be intentionally stalled or spun.

Equipping the Cirrus with CAPS was not an admission of failure on the part of the aircraft. It was an attempt to give pilots who make a series of successively greater mistakes resulting in loss of control one last chance to save themselves and their passengers.

It is one of relatively few aircraft to do so. It has saved lives in the past which would have been lost, and it will continue to do so in the future. And, even though it may not save the life of a Cirrus pilot who has a fatal heart-attack in flight, if his or her passengers fire the 'chute, it will almost certainly save them.

[Jack Ranga]

Great post there critical :D I had a fly of the Cirrus recently, when I read the accident report I had quite a few questions, you've answered most of them :ok:

[Lookleft]

At a presentation I attended given by the Australian Cirrus agents some months ago it was explicitly stated the Cirrus can recover from a spin without using the CAPS, but only if there is sufficient altitude.

Theres's your problem right there! My only knowledge of operating a Cirrus is from the report and what it states about spinning, basically don't do it.

If the agents are openly stating that the only requirement for spinning is altitude then they are putting themselves into test pilot territory and lives at risk. The ATSB report seems to back that up.

[Victa Bravo]

I think we all agree the aircraft was no way at fault in this instance.

The cowboy salesman should be working on finding a new career about now and Cirrus Aircraft can chalk up another example of how the aircraft's ultimate "get out clause" has proven it's value.

Despite Darwin trying to weed out 1of the 3 on board and as Criticalmass writes:

"Three people walked away alive, rather than being carried away"

Which is the silver lining to this very sad tale of a severe lack of judgment.

VB

[Jack Ranga]

One could ask whether the PIC had done any SIM training, induction training?

[Ultralights]

how many pilots these days actually have any real spin and upset recovery training? obviously this salesman/pilot didnt.. how much height is actually needed to recover a cirrus from a spin?

[Squawk7700]

One could ask whether the PIC had done any SIM training, induction training?

If he's approved by Cirrus he would have at least done the initial Cirrus ground school and check-ride (ie. he should have known better). It either used to be or still is a requirement in Australia in order for your insurance policy to be valid.

Smacking the rudder at the stall was never part of my official Cirrus approved endorsement.

[gchriste]

Wow that is pretty sobering reading. I am going through PPL training at the moment, so maybe it is all fresher in my mind than someone a few years out of training, but basic HASSEL checks include the location as one of the checks. A good look out the window during a clearing turn to check for obstacles, potential landing sites etc. This site would seem to fail on some many levels :(

[Old Akro]

Here is a pretty interesting report on spin recovery of Cirrus

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

I'm overseas and don't have time to read it thoroughly, but I think it is saying that Cirrus gained an exemption on the spin requirements for certification because it argued that the ballistic parachute would be used in the case of an inadvertent spin obviating the need for spin recovery.

To me this the equivalent of saying that you don't need to design an aircraft properly if you have technology to compensate.

I know car design better than aircraft. There are some cars which have poor chassis dynamics and they use electronic stability control to mask it. The better cars and the more enjoyable ones to drive are the ones with fundamentally good chassis dynamics and use electronic stability control simply as a safety net.

I'd be interested to hear DJPilks view.

On another note, it would seem to me that either the ATSB have copied down the PIC's statement wrong, or the PIC did not use best practice spin recovery technique. Among other things, adding power in a developed spin is pretty entertaining.

I don't like the statements I have read rationalising Cirrus' unproven spin recovery by saying its typical of other high performance aircraft. Its just not true and practically all of Cirrus' competitors have been through full spin testing as part of certification.

But, given the lack of spin certification for Cirrus aircraft and the Cirrus advice against intentional spins, Spinning would seem to have no place at all in demonstration flights.

[onetrack]

The PIC then took control of the aircraft and stated ‘watch this’I wonder if the actual words used, were those classic redneck, famous last words? "Hold my beer, and watch this!!"

Seems to me like the Cirrus parachute recovery system could have deleterious effects upon that necessary regular scrub out, of the gene pool. :(

[Stikybeke]

I'm with Ultralights,

I don't mean to embarrass anyone but given what I've read I would strongly suspect that Ultralights has a Spin endorsement in the logbook to recover from fully developed spins as part of the Aerobatic journey (which is a good thing...). I agree with what is suggested but still shake my head in disbelief regarding this demonstration flight (if that's correct of course..) taking into account the circumstances of the flight as publicy reported by the ATSB.

Surely no one in their right mind would intentionally enter into an induced spin or a flight profile that would contribute in that direction over tiger country or anywhere else for that matter where you don't have the benefit of altitude, an identified landing area (should it go pearshape) or most importantly, being in an aircraft that is not spin certified. Of course this is taking into account that the PIC has a good operational experience and requisite knowledge of the aircraft being flown.

They are all very lucky to have survived this accident.

I fondly recall whilst undertaking my Spinning endorsement that the entry altitude for a fully developed spin was at least 6000ft AGL and that's whilst entertaining a stabilised descent rate of 100ft/s (in the R2160). You can do the math from a fully developed flat spin (recovery from 10+ spins).

I've never flown a Cirrus but I see that "The Banjo" has given in his post that "The maximum vertical speed reached about 14,000 feet per minute prior to the CAPS deployment". That's about 230fps. (Would this be right XXX?) Even given some time following entry into that profile to wind up to that descent rate that's quite frightening......god knows what the recovery would be.

Critical Mass's post also provides many valuable points for consideration as does Old Akro's. Well done guys and thank goodness you've taken the time to contribute to this.

I'm sure that Cirrus is a great aircraft provided it's operated within its flight envelope and I see that the SR22T is on a demonstration tour around the country between September to December (according to an advertisement in the July 2014 Aviation Trader). From what I've read of the aircraft it seems to just get better and better provided (of course) that it's flown the way it should be.......

Stiky
:D

[Oakape]

The PIC reported that at this time he performed his normal recovery procedure from this manoeuvre: maintained a neutral aileron control position, applied forward pressure on the control stick to pitch the aircraft nose down, rudders neutral and applied power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't opposite rudder part of the normal procedure for spin recovery?

The passenger in the front seat reported that he applied full left rudder in an attempt to counter the rotation.
As the rate of rotation to the right slowed, the passenger in the front seat felt the PIC apply right rudder, and the aircraft again accelerated rotating to the right.

It would seem the fellow had no real idea of how to recover from a spin. That is a real worry when he is demonstrating advanced stalls!

[andrewr]

Interestingly, during the "spin" the indicated airspeed increased from 62 knots to 140 knots, which doesn't actually sound like a spin. The vertical speed also increases with the airspeed.

140 knots with between 50 and 70 degrees pitch down would indeed give an impressive rate of descent.

Quotes from the POH in the report:

"In some cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin."

and:

"if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required"

Good advice :)

It sounds to me like the PIC/salesman was (as he noted) "overconfident as he had done the demonstration 30-50 times" previously and unprepared for the resulting unusual attitude.

I don't believe it was an actual spin due to the steadily increasing and resulting high IAS value. It looks like a spiral that possibly it could have been recovered by closing the throttle, rolling wings level and pulling out of the dive. That may have been difficult due to airspeed/G/altitude limits.

The CAPS certainly saved the day, and the PIC made the correct decision following the loss of control.

I don't think much blame can be put on the aircraft here, except perhaps for inducing overconfidence in the pilot. Might similar performance aircraft e.g. a Bonanza also occasionally drop a wing and enter a spiral if you did a similar stall (25 degree bank, flap, adding power as it stalls)?

[Old Akro]

I think the answer is almost certainly no.

Bonanza and other competitive high performance aircraft all did spin testing as part of the certification process. Cirrus did not.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Might similar performance aircraft e.g. a Bonanza also occasionally drop a wing and enter a spiral if you did a similar stall (25 degree bank, flap, adding power as it stalls)?

I have stalled the BE35 (V35B) every which way! A properly rigged Bonanza is a relatively benign beast. However, if a bit out of rig or provoked with gear down, flaps and power, it will get you attention.

Far more benign that the Traumahawk that I used to instruct in which would consistently roll on its back if stalled with flaps and power.

Dr :8

[rutan around]

Isn't spin testing to prove that an aircraft which has entered a spin is able to recover using usual recovery methods? I don't think it means they will not spin. Some aircraft need more provocation than others before they will spin.

[Old Akro]

Isn't spin testing to prove that an aircraft which has entered a spin is able to recover using usual recovery methods? I don't think it means they will not spin. Some aircraft need more provocation than others before they will spin.

Correct. But Cirrus was not spin tested as part of the certification. They argued for and were granted exemption on the basis of the ballistic chute.

Anyone who spins a Cirrus is taking on the role of test pilot and doing something that the designers and manufacturers have not done (or if they have - did not release results).

[andrewr]

Anyone who spins a Cirrus is taking on the role of test pilot and doing something that the designers and manufacturers have not done (or if they have - did not release results).

I don't know why you say that, when you previously linked to a report describing Cirrus spin testing and results?

The report you linked to says spin testing was conducted with more than 60 spin entries, and:
"The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined ... Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet."

however they did not test all cases in the spin test matrix, and say that it must be assumed that there are some unrecoverable characteristics.

The report also says:
"A majority of the general aviation pilot population do not receive any spin recovery training whatsoever...

The reliability level of a general aviation pilot to properly react in a loss of control condition in any type of airplane is historically low (see the FAA statistics...

While a small percentage of Cirrus pilots may be able to successfully recover from an inadvertent spin, Cirrus contends that the far larger portion of pilots would not do so in a surprise departure spin situation...

Cirrus believes it is better to accept some airframe losses through CAPS activation when the airplane could have been flown away following a successful recovery, in order to save the lives of the far larger number of pilots who would not be able to successfully execute a spin recovery...

Cirrus has reached strong conclusion that any spin recovery guidance in the AFM distracts pilot from immediately activating CAPS system when the aircraft has departed controlled flight. Cirrus is removing existing references to spin recovery in its current AFM. The clear AFM procedure will be to activate CAPS system in the event that control is lost."

They say that it is safer to activate the CAPS than attempt to recover, and it is possible that there are some unrecoverable configurations. That is different to saying it will not recover at all, or it has never been spun.

[Old Akro]

I don't know why you say that, when you previously linked to a report describing Cirrus spin testing and results?

Those tests were done on an SR20 only and not the SR22. They were done at the instigation of the JAA after FAA certification because of concerns the JAA had . As I recall, those spin tests did not follow the certification schedule.

The footnote to one of the tables bothers me when it says that all spins were conducted at gross weight. This infers only one loading condition was tested. It is also unlikely to be the critical spin condition which is almost certainly aft c of g and may occur at a weight below MTOW.

I'm not saying the Cirrus can or cannot spin. I'm just saying that unlike its mainstream competitors, Cirrus side stepped the certification spin testing.

[Ultralights]

Cirrus, get your act together, if these guys can do it, spin testing a 4 seat aircraft, with 4 pax, and 3/4 fuel, and not just incipient entry, but a developed, stabilised, 10 rotation spin. in an aircraft with equal, or better performance than the Cirrus.

9e31q09AksA

[Andy_RR]

They must be bloody confident (or brave) to put 4 people in a prototype aircraft and do a ten-turn spin... :o

lovely aircraft, btw. I hope it's not built for Pipistrel midgets

[T28D]

Did they get approval for the wing tip camera mount

[Jack Ranga]

Is that a YouTube thingy? I can't see anything posted there??

[Jack Ranga]

Thank you cleared :ok:

[HarleyD]

Cirrus claim that a parchute is best recovery method rather than relying on pilot skill is spin spin spin.

Awesome marketing to promote an aircraft's deficiency and inability to comply with a certification requirement as a safety BENEFIT.

If it will recover from some configurations but not others in the matrix, that is a non compliance, FAIL.

Compliance with FAR 23 requires a normal pilot of normal ability, using conventional techniques without excessive force or exceptional skill, to be able to recover IAW procedure specified in POH.

Demonstration of compliance requires one turn spin and recovery in no more than one additional turn. If this is not able to be met then it is a FAIL.......so.... On with a ballistic chute and, hey presto, safer than compliance....... NOT. This is equivalent safety determination, but really should be regarded as an exception, or an exemption from requirement to show compliance by regulatory authority FAA. Lucky Cirrus was US owned and not Chinese back then or it may have been a very different outcome.

Fail to recover is fail to recover.

Another method to aviod spin recovery is to make aircraft 'spin resistant' basically meaning won't spin. Usually far too hard to demonstrate.

Remember, of course, that FAR 23 is a fluid document and that spin recovery for older aircraft does not meet current standards. We are in the amendment 60's at this time. Many FAR 23 aircraft, like the Cirrii, will not recover to full current requirments because FAR23 standards have been made more rigourous over the years with higher amendment status.

Bonanza......FAR 23......?????? Or CAR 3 from the 1950's, different standards? dont hold the Bonny up as a shining example of FAR 23 please.

Beware of any demo pilot who says "watch this"

Except me, te he he

HD