Light Aircraft Crash in Whitsundays [Archive]

ozbiggles

25th Dec 2009, 07:41

Having not flown a parachute equipped aircraft, what is the training for when you should pop the chute?
Does it say have a go at a forced landing if you think you can make it, or does it just say pop it under controlled conditions? Or 101 things in between.
My thoughts are having had the engine fail the warranty, I'm happy to use the chute! Its good to see a little bit of technology, saving lives and hats off to the people selling and BUYING this stuff (and the pilots having the courage to use it too)
Anyone in the 'know' gives us a soldiers 5 on what the 'book' says?
NOT having any say on this accident at all as no one knows much at all yet.... let alone how far out on finals it was or why.
The only good known fact is the pilot is still with us.

Ultralights

25th Dec 2009, 08:13

some of our aircraft are fitted with BRS chutes, as for training, none so far, but a section in the POH on their use.

Chute should only be used as an absolute last resort, situations such as pilot incapacitation, airframe failure or engine failure over inhospitable terrain. Use of the BRS chute can result in serious injury and will result in the destruction of the aircraft. forced controlled landing is preferred.

Jenna Talia

25th Dec 2009, 08:45

I thought there is a minimum altitude limitation for use of the chute. For example, the SR22 that went in near Hoxton Park a couple of years ago deployed the chute at around 1,500 feet with the result of it wrapping around the tail. :eek:

DaisyDuck

25th Dec 2009, 09:10

Why is a fancy new aircraft "throwing a piston" ..in the first place?? (if that is in fact what happened)...

mates rates

25th Dec 2009, 09:33

The manual says pop the chute not below 2000 agl but capable of operating as low as 400 AGL.

VH-XXX

25th Dec 2009, 10:50

The SR22 that went in near Hoxton Park had an issue with the rocket head deployment and as such would have had the chute wrapped around the tail regardless of airspeed and altitude. An AD was raised shortly after for all CAPS systems.

If you've got it, use it, particularly if you know you can't land safely. A 22 would need a solid 300 metres for a deadstick to be successful.

It's the descent rate that would hurt, rumoured to be 2,500fpm!

I wonder if an AD will come out on the IO550 after this one! Was thinking those twin turbos and 215 tas would be a good thing.

Mick.B

25th Dec 2009, 21:25

Same flash silver one that was on display with Cirrus at Avalon this year. Lycoming will be having some interest in this one.

fixa24

25th Dec 2009, 21:52

... let alone how far out on finals it was or why.

Dude, i already told you.

Get your whitsunday VTC out. Aircraft went in the water at the northern tip of Dent island. I know that area very well, and can tell you thats about a 2nm final.

Why is a fancy new aircraft "throwing a piston" ..in the first place?? (if that is in fact what happened)...
Could be a million reasons... ECu failure causing overspeed, incorrect mixture, etc etc..

I have been told it sounded rough from the moment of lift off....

Capt Fathom

25th Dec 2009, 22:07

Threw a piston apparently during take off

How would anyone know that without a post accident engine strip down?

fixa24

25th Dec 2009, 22:22

How would anyone know that without a post accident engine strip down?

Pretty obvious when it sticks out the side of the engine.
No saying that's what happened though..

VH-XXX

25th Dec 2009, 23:02

"throwing a piston" is more of a figure of speech than actual physical occurence. For an aircraft engine to throw a piston the cylinder would have to effectively be ripped off the engine to expose the piston and or conrod. It certainly is possible to break off a cylinder at the studs (very common in certain engine types) and this would explain how the aircraft was able to continue with the circuit.

If this aircraft is under water as has been suggested I am impressed with the quick recovery, engine failure analysis and dissemination of information to pprune.

fixa24

26th Dec 2009, 05:59

If this aircraft is under water as has been suggested I am impressed with the quick recovery, engine failure analysis and dissemination of information to pprune.
It was initially recovered to dent island. it sunk in the process of transferring it to Hamilton island :ugh::{

sms777

26th Dec 2009, 07:17

It does not nesseraly mean you actually send a piston into orbit by blowing the cylinder head off. It is impossible. It is a term commonly used when you loose a cylinder caused by a broken ring, a failed valve or a broken ring land on the piston or something similar to cause loss of compression in that particular cylinder to loose power. In my opinion it was a partial engine failure but i was not there so what do i know.

Arnold E

26th Dec 2009, 07:27

blowing the cylinder head off. It is impossible.
You are joking arn't you?

Capt Fathom

26th Dec 2009, 07:38

it sunk in the process of transferring it to Hamilton island

What! The recovery vessel sank?

No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamiltion Island, then lost it?

According to an unreliable source.... Boats attempted to tow the aircraft back to Dent Island but failed and it sunk shortly after the crash.

A bit too much poetic license being used here to describe events!

Otherwise known as good old aussie exaggeration! :E

baron_beeza

26th Dec 2009, 08:09

I have been working around these engines as a LAME for over 30 years and have to admit I am someone perplexed at some of the replies. I guess probably a reflection of what we also see on other threads, a little gossip, some rumour but not always too much fact.

I was a little surprised to see a previous post about barrels failing about the hold-down studs. A new one on me, I know Norton Commandos used to crack in that area.
As for cylinder failures......of course aircraft engines pop cylinders... what do you think the engineers are doing checking around the head and attachment area during their inspections.

On some engines I can name it is probably more common than the other failures like piston, ring or valve related.

In my experience of engine failures most have been caused by incorrect handling, either directly or indirectly.

A full failure is most often fuel related, very little redundancy and plenty of potential for failure modes. I guess the same could be said of the lubrication system but that generally gives at least a little warning.

Partial failures such as valve issues, or popping the head, I feel are caused by poor handling, incorrect heating and cooling etc. Guys trying to burn plugs off to improve a mag drop etc.

A cylinder head failure is nasty, but not the end of the world. Sure there will be a decrease in power.. and some oil spray. But it is leaking from the pushrod tubes and the engine can continue running for some time. The exhaust and intake manifolds ensure the cylinder head is still held close to it's original position.
Many pilots used to declare a failure and shut the engine down, - now you do have a full failure.... and the risks to the aircraft.

I am sure many here have experienced a cylinder popping and have stories to tell. Hopefully a pleasant ending.

VH-XXX

26th Dec 2009, 08:23

I know of a specific engine type that frequently pops cylinders off by the studs breaking, however if an aware / experienced pilot is at the controls, the result is usually positive as some power is still avaliable, albiet quite reduced and with a heck of a lot of vibration.

I thought it might float better than that unless it was full of go-juice.

Another win for BRS.

fixa24

26th Dec 2009, 08:40

What! The recovery vessel sank?

No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamiltion Island, then lost it?

According to an unreliable source.... Boats attempted to tow the aircraft back to Dent Island but failed and it sunk shortly after the crash.

A bit too much poetic license being used here to describe events!

According to my source who was involved in the events,
No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamilton Island, then lost it? is precisely what happened.

PA39

26th Dec 2009, 08:52

:sad: Was it Steve Maltby on the rudder pedals ??

VH-XXX

26th Dec 2009, 11:47

Don't mention that name around here please!!!!

OmniRadial

26th Dec 2009, 12:53

Pilot escapes sinking plane - Mackay Daily Mercury (http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/12/26/pilot-escapes-sinking-plane/)

frigatebird

26th Dec 2009, 19:11

Thats a funny photo of the boats towing an aircraft backwards, underwater..
A light plane from Archerfield ended up in the surf after a landing on a beach on Fraser once. 'Helpful' 4 wheel drive owners without any aviation knowledge put a rope around the fuse forward of the tail and pulled to get it out.. did lots of damage then..
Engine failures..?? At Hamilton..??
Does time run slow, or backwards too..??
Might be a 'Whitsunday Triangle", - Stay away..

VH-XXX

26th Dec 2009, 19:51

Sounds like he turned it into a marketing opportunit for Cirrus from his recovery bed.

Experienced pilots here, would you as a pilot unlatch the doors / hatches before a forced outlanding, particularly over water?

From the sound of his experience he sounds lucky, smashing a window in an upside down Cirrus in the water does sound rather distressing indeed.

Mainframe

26th Dec 2009, 22:32

Arnold E, Baron Beeza, VH-XXX,

Losing or throwing a cylinder or piston is not impossible, just unlikely.

Here's some photos of a C206 that did both.

Cruising at 8,000 ft, 20 nm off shore, started to run rough, then threw the cylinder plus piston out through the cowling.

Pilot set up for nearest suitable landing spot, managed to coax it to Lockhart River.

Windscreen covered in oil, made a straight in approach to rwy 30 with a tailwind.

As soon as the 206 touched down the engine seized, no more oil to keep it running.

****e happens, the situation was managed, and lady luck helped out as well.

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/mainframe_bucket/DSC00417.jpg?t=1261869668

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad58/mainframe_bucket/DSC00419.jpg?t=1261869585

Cap'n Arrr

27th Dec 2009, 02:17

VH-XXX

Yeah, I would unlatch the door, depending on time available and aircraft type. e.g. I would do it in a Cessna, but not in a TB10.

Also, even with BRS fitted a good forced landing is still preferable to a chute. The chute is more for when there's no way to make a safe forced landing. Pretty sure it says something to that effect in the manual.

I'd rather fly it in than pop the chute if I had a good field any day

desmotronic

27th Dec 2009, 02:17

The reason these aircraft are required to have a parachute is because there is no other means of spin recovery so could not be certified without one. Anything else you read about BRS is pure marketing propaganda.

Rich-Fine-Green

27th Dec 2009, 03:18

desmotronic:

The reason these aircraft are required to have a parachute is because there is no other means of spin recovery so could not be certified without one. Anything else you read about BRS is pure marketing propaganda.

Not sure if you did any research before you posted your message.

The Europeans made Cirrus do some spins before they granted EASA Certification.

Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin) (http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx)

Have a read, it might enlighten you to do some checking before you post next time. :=

VH-XXX

27th Dec 2009, 04:51

RFG, correct, it is a common misconception that the Cirrus has a BRS because it "has" to. It's there because the designers wanted it; after all, this aircraft is considered the new-age Doctor Killer.

One could suggest that it (a BRS) should be considered mandatory these days if it's available on the specific aircraft types and if it doesn't eat too much into the MTOW, just for that "once in a life-time" situation when seems to frequently occur in aviation.

desmotronic

27th Dec 2009, 06:42

RFG,
Your link confirms that the cetification rules have been relaxed so that spin recovery is no longer required if the design is sufficiently spin resistant. This is consistent with what i said the context of development of the type and CAPS.

Tarq57

27th Dec 2009, 07:41

desmotronic

27th Dec 2009, 08:35

Foreign Type Certificate Details
Type Certificate: Number A00009CH
Issued by: Federal Aviation Administration
Manufacturer: Cirrus Design Corporation
Model: SR20 SR22
Engines: Teledyne Continental IO-360-ES Teledyne Continental IO-550-N
Propellers: Hartzell BHC-J2YF-1BF/F7694 Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7694
Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1xF/F7392-1
MCTOW 2900 lb. 3400 lb.
3000 lb. (s/n 1148 and on, or with SB 20-01-00 embodied)
Noise Category: FAR 36
The certification basis of the Cirrus SR20 is Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-47, except some specified
paragraphs are up to Amendment 23-52. The certification basis of the Cirrus SR22 is Part
23 of the FARs effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-53, except for
§23.301 at Amendment 23-47 and three paragraphs being not applicable.
The Cirrus is the first type certificated aircraft equipped with a ballistic recovery parachute
(called Cirrus Airframe Parachute System CAPS) as basic equipment, and a Special
Condition was applied by the FAA to this feature In addition, an equivalent level of safety
finding was required by Cirrus to allow the provision of CAPS to be used in lieu of
meeting stall recovery criteria. Another ELOS was made for the engine controls, similar to
one granted in the past to Cessna. These have been reviewed and accepted by the CAA.
This is an acceptable certification basis in accordance with NZCAR Part 21B Para §21.41,
as FAR 23 is the basic standard for Normal Category Airplanes called up under Part 21
Appendix C. There are no non-compliances and no additional special conditions have been
prescribed by the Director under §21.23.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Type_Acceptance_Reps/Cirrus_SR20-22.pdf

cant get onto faa website but caa nz refers...

VH-XXX

27th Dec 2009, 08:38

Tarq, don't worry about it, as a good mate mate says, "only the guilty justify."

Tarq57

27th Dec 2009, 08:45

I'm prepared to stand partially corrected, in that I have no refutable proof, but the above document doesn't actually prove your allegation in post #36.
Not having flown the aircraft, I can not know, but it would appear to me that it is likely to have been able to pass the spin certification, were that the chosen path for the manufacturer. Of course, since having the BRS negates (in this particular case)the requirement to have it certified for spin recovery, it would appear to me that the maker may have simply chosen to not certify it for same, and therefore does not necessarily reflect on the "spinnability" of the product.
A spin recovery chute, much smaller and less costly, would have achieved the certification requirement if the aircraft couldn't.

Tarq57

27th Dec 2009, 08:47

Tarq, don't worry about it, as a good mate mate says, "only the guilty justify." Nice quote.
I might have to use that. Sure I'll find a situation somewhere.
Could easy be turned against one, if not a bit careful, though.
Resolution for 2012: "Must be less argumentative."
"Says who?"

Peter Fanelli

27th Dec 2009, 10:23

Lycoming will be having some interest in this one.

Why?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

:ugh:

VH-XXX

27th Dec 2009, 20:46

Why?

Good question! I'd LOVE to know the answer to that too Mick B!

desmotronic

27th Dec 2009, 23:10

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 has accordingly concluded, as a result of the further extensive flight test conducted pursuant
to the JAA Study Group direction in April 2000, that in an inadvertent spin entry, time and altitude
is too critical to allow for any pilot reaction except the simple and quick process of reaching for
the CAPS handle and activating the system. 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.

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

Tarq57

28th Dec 2009, 00:31

I read something similar.
The Cirrus contention is probably valid, and appears to me to be as much to do with a failed training philosophy as an explanation as to why they elected to not bother putting the airframes through a spin certification test regime.

Clearly if someone has allowed their aircraft to stall at low altitude and let it develop into a spin, there wasn't much hope in the first place, was there?

I bet if those crew-members in Buffalo had a BRS (have to be a big 'un) they would have used it. (But maybe not, the SA disconnect might have precluded even that, by the time it got to that point.)

Anyway, this is a bit OT. (Sorry.) So if you want to have the last word on this issue, go for it.

Cap'n Arrr

28th Dec 2009, 06:42

As far as I could tell desmo, Cirrus simply tested that the chute would get the aircraft down safely following a spin, and to make life easy put that in the flight manual as the spin recovery. From my experience with the aircraft I would certainly attempt a normal spin recovery before blowing the chute (time/alt permitting) and to be honest I would expect higher than 50% chance of the aircraft recovering (no science, just a guess, it's much nicer in the stall than a lot of other spin approved aircraft)

While it may be true to an extent, I believe that the BRS is to help sell a new single engine aircraft to people who might be considering the safety of a twin vs single, so they can say "you don't have any risk of losing control if the engine blows compared to a twin, and even if you're over tiger county and it happens, you can just pop the parachute and it'll drop in nice and easy"

frigatebird

28th Dec 2009, 08:32

Should be the prefered overwater single, in that case, - you would have time to get the raft ready to push out the door while on the way down..

VH-XXX

28th Dec 2009, 09:01

It was probably floating quite happily and would do so for a long period if it was upright however sounds like it possibly flipped over as the landing was not stabilised due to the low altitude at which the chute was deployed, so in theory it would be a great aircraft to bob around in the ocean in whilst waiting for recovery (versus a high wing where you'd be sitting on the wing, in this case, you'd be sitting on the wing, but in a nice leather seat.

Now where is that metar again????? I'm beginning to sound like old Planky.

MakeItHappenCaptain

28th Dec 2009, 10:10

To end all the uninformed opinions (like we get anything but on PPrune:rolleyes:)

From the SR22 Flight Manual
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft “departs controlled flight,” the CAPS
must be deployed.
While the stall characteristics of the SR22 make accidental entry into
a spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by
using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper
airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook,
and never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when
close to the stall (see Stalls, Section 4).
If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated
inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt
wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some
cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a
spiral or the beginning of a spin.
If time and altitude permit, the following procedures may be used to
determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable spiral/incipient spin
or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed controlled flight.
■ WARNING ■
■ In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from
which recovery is not expected before ground impact,
immediate deployment of the CAPS is required.
■ The minimum certified altitude loss for a CAPS deployment
from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes
provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries.
Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a
spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
1. Power Lever ............................................................ .................IDLE
2. Control Yoke........................................................ .................Neutral
3. Rudder..........................Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin Direction
■ Note ■
If disorientation precludes visual determination of the
direction of rotation, refer to the symbolic airplane in the turn
coordinator. If the spiral/spin was entered while applying
rudder, then the opposite rudder should be applied for
recovery.
4. Just after the rudder reaches the stop, move the yoke briskly
forward far enough to break the stall. Full down elevator may be
required. Hold these control inputs until rotation stops. Premature
relaxation of control inputs may prolong the recovery.
5. After rotation stops, neutralize rudder, and make a smooth
recovery from the resulting dive. Add power as required. Be
prepared for possible engine power loss if rotation causes fuel
starvation.
If the above steps do not recover the aircraft and/or it has been
determined that the aircraft has departed controlled flight:
6. CAPS........................................................ ...........................Activate

This is a fairly standard spin recovery technique.
If it doesn't work, that's what the chute is for!

PS-Channel Nine in Brisbane has just cottoned onto the story. Breaking news four days later.........:rolleyes:
Apparently he broke the back window to get out. (The 1 foot square one behind the back seats??!??)
Gotta love the media.:cool:

VH-XXX

28th Dec 2009, 10:49

You're not wrong, that would be quite an effort for Mr. M !

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/back.jpgfor

McDooz

28th Dec 2009, 11:19

Yeah was Stevo; rear window escape my big fat bum. Try the left side window in the door after it wouldn't unlock...

650' agl cough splutter, fan stops, sweat starts, 1st thought is turn back, 2nd thought is bugger not gonna make it, 3rd thought is pull the bloody lever. Plane was still doing a reasonable forward speed on contact and flipped endish for end. Pulled the raft, floated until nearby boats got there. Minor neck/shoulder injuries and cuts from glass.

Not saying that's what happened here but SLS had a history of fuel flow and starvation issues as well as CHT probs. Many a man-hour has been wasted fixing stupid mechanical "shouldn't-happens" on that biatch. I had a couple of no-gos in that thing thanks to fuel. I bloody wish they'd leave turbos to Kenworth Trucks and WRXies.

Many lucky factors here, could have happened at 25,000' over the Outback or worse. I don't like to say here and you can't really argue but not too many would know the Cirrus better than him; that plane he actually owned.

McDooz.

Rich-Fine-Green

28th Dec 2009, 20:39

Photo emailed to me by boatie mate at Hammo:

Looks like broken Rear Back/Row 2 window to me.

(Would have attached photo but don't know how to from desktop).

Apparently the aircraft was under water N/W of Dent Island, then towed to a beach by the floating chute. During the attempt to relocate to Shute Harbour, it got away and sank in 15-20 m of water. :ooh:

Clearedtoreenter

28th Dec 2009, 22:41

it got away and sank in 15-20 m of water.

Hope its not my insurance company!

Tankengine

29th Dec 2009, 03:09

If the 22 did not have a chute a controlled ditching [with the door unlatched] would have probably ended with an upright aircraft floating in the water long enough to get out.[ah-la "Sully"]:D

VH-XXX

29th Dec 2009, 04:59

It's the age old golden question, who knows whether it would flip over on landing or not, the Cirrus is certainly not a STOL machine so chances are it would flip as it would hit pretty hard.

MakeItHappenCaptain

29th Dec 2009, 06:53

With fixed gear, reducing the forward speed is going lessen the chances of nosing over when ditching. I would have definitely used the chute.

Capt Fathom

29th Dec 2009, 07:44

I would have definitely used the chute

I would certainly have not!

That said, it's all a bit of a gamble. I'd prefer to back my own ability to get the plane down safely on the water.

Some here prefer to pop the chute.

At the end of the day, luck has the final say. Hopefully good, not bad!

PS...

The chute gives you a choice you didn't have before. A bit like a single verses a twin when one fails on take off. Do you or don't you continue?

Choice can lead to a false sense of security. If in fact it existed to begin with!

Clearedtoreenter

29th Dec 2009, 09:34

One opinion from Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20) -

If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead.

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots.

If the engine were to quit over water or the mountains at night, the parachute would be a nice feature indeed. However, mechanical failures are not a very common cause of small airplane crashes. Indeed, after 10 years and thousands of Cirruses operating worldwide, engine failure followed by parachute deployment has never occurred.

(Has it now?)

By contrast it seems that quite a few of the folks who have pulled the parachute and lived would very likely have either not gotten into trouble if they'd been flying a Cessna or would have been able to recover and land at an airport.

MakeItHappenCaptain

29th Dec 2009, 10:55

Quote:
I would have definitely used the chute

I would certainly have not!

That said, it's all a bit of a gamble. I'd prefer to back my own ability to get the plane down safely on the water.

Not doubting your ability to get the aircraft to the water in one piece, and despite the fact this accident still resulted in an inverted situation, I still think using the chute to reduce forward momentum prior to a ditching (with fixed gear anyway) was the safest course of action. Not using it would have probably guaranteed the inversion.

I'm sure pilots who navigated using four course radio range were initially sceptical of pilots not having to be trained on its use once VORs and NDBs came on the scene. Todays pilot's will probably look on glass and say that tomorrow's pilots have no idea what a "proper" scanning technique on steam instruments was about.
Just because a new technology makes things easier doesn't mean it should be ignored. I'm not saying that the recovery techniques for aircraft without this equipment shouldn't be taught (in fact as I already posted they are still a part of the emerg procs) and I do agree there will be a tendancy to resort to the easiest solution (pop the chute) but just because not everyone has access to this technology doesn't mean no-one should have it. You may refer to it as the new doctor killer, but I think this technology will result in exactly the opposite. It's up to initial training and flight reviews to make sure that retired medical professionals (gross generalisation, don't take offence) don't put themselves in a position to require the BRS in the first place.

SUPERIOR PILOTS SHOULD USE THEIR SUPERIOR JUDGEMENT TO AVOID HAVING TO EXERCISE THEIR SUPERIOR SKILLS.:cool:

No disrespect intended, but the SBK and MMB midairs may have turned out differently with a BRS. That kind of situation is what prompted its initial inclusion for the SR's.

mates rates

30th Dec 2009, 05:44

Pulling the chute means aircraft is a right-off,means collect insurance,buy another aircraft!!

VH-XXX

30th Dec 2009, 07:26

Pulling the chute means aircraft is a right-off,means collect insurance,buy another aircraft!!

That's interesting. A Cirrus agent at OshKosh told me otherwise and a $100k repair bill to re-run the chute lines etc. Subject to the amount of peripheral damage it might well be a write-off however.

MakeItHappenCaptain

30th Dec 2009, 08:40

The deployment doesn't cause the damage.
Landing under the chute is equivalent to a drop of about 10/13' for the sr20/sr22. There have been instances of hang-ups in trees that were repairable. Water may give a similar result.
Who cares about the aircraft if you survive?:)

VH-XXX

30th Dec 2009, 09:05

2,500 fpm descent rate was a figure being thrown around.

McDooz

30th Dec 2009, 14:02

All wrong. Do some research; make a phone call...

Landing with CAPS in an SR22 is equivalent to a freefall from 2.4m (8') at MTOW in a nil-forward-speed situation. The SR20 is equivalent to a 1.8m (6') freefall.

The pure activation of CAPS causes no permanent damage to the airframe at all; the straps are designed to tear out of the composite shell cleanly.

The actual re-setting of CAPS costs about $35,000aud at Cirrus Archerfield; the bulk of that cost is the supply of the new CAPS unit and cover (bearing in mind it's a solid-fuel rocket). Install takes about 20 hours. This of course does not include transport or repairing damage on landing or the original reason CAPS was activated.

McDooz.

sdbeach

30th Dec 2009, 17:58

One opinion from Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) -Yup, one opinion. Regrettably, an opinion oft-quoted but IMHO poorly representing the challenge of flying a Cirrus in difficult situations.

If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead.
By contrast it seems that quite a few of the folks who have pulled the parachute and lived would very likely have either not gotten into trouble if they'd been flying a Cessna or would have been able to recover and land at an airport.As of this accident, 36 people have survived 18 deployments of the Cirrus parachute.

And by analyzing the decision chains in all Cirrus fatal accidents, about 60 people have died in 30 fatal accidents (more than half of the total of 56) where the accident pilot faced a situation similar to a successful parachute pull -- but didn't pull.

To me, that is the real tragedy. When Cirrus pilots need it, they don't use it and they die. Even when they have time -- up to 30 to 45 seconds in a 9- or 15-turn spin.

Unfortunately, too many people opine on the best case outcomes as if there was no choice and conveniently ignore the worst case outcomes.

Fortunately, Steve deployed the parachute and survived. Since his airplane has CAPS, he had the choice.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

30th Dec 2009, 18:12

If the engine were to quit over water or the mountains at night, the parachute would be a nice feature indeed. However, mechanical failures are not a very common cause of small airplane crashes. Indeed, after 10 years and thousands of Cirruses operating worldwide, engine failure followed by parachute deployment has never occurred.(Has it now?)Yes.

At Elkin, NC, USA, in June 2009, a catastrophic engine failure at 6,000 feet caused oil to obscure the windscreen and the pilot elected to deploy the CAPS parachute and landed in a field. A piston broke through the cylinder wall.

At Patterson, LA, USA, in Dec 2008, at night, when the pilot reported engine problems, deployed CAPS at high altitude and landed in a canal. Interestingly, no accident report has ever appeared.

At Turriaco, Italy, in Nov 2008, a pilot diverted after a missed approach and exhausted his fuel, was about to land short in trees and pulled parachute handle at low-altitude.

The circumstances under which people in Cirrus airplanes have survived difficult situations with the CAPS parachute covers a very impressive and wide range of scenarios. If you fly with one, you owe yourself and your passengers the benefit of planning when to use CAPS.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

30th Dec 2009, 18:15

2,500 fpm descent rate was a figure being thrown around. Actual descent rate under canopy is 1700 fpm, approximately 17 knots. Horizontal speed is determined by prevailing winds aloft.

This has been observed by examining the recorded flight data of an accident airplane during the Cirrus parachute deployment at Luna, NM, USA in 2006.

Cheers
Rick

MakeItHappenCaptain

1st Jan 2010, 01:48

All wrong. Do some research; make a phone call...

Landing with CAPS in an SR22 is equivalent to a freefall from 2.4m (8') at MTOW in a nil-forward-speed situation. The SR20 is equivalent to a 1.8m (6') freefall.

Once again, referring to the POH rather than "I think I heard".....
(Not what happens on pprune much btw:hmm:)

SR20 POH says...
CAPS Deployment
The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) should be activated in
the event of a life-threatening emergency where CAPS deployment is
determined to be safer than continued flight and landing.
■ WARNING ■
CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe
and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high
deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind
conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the
occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated
when any other means of handling the emergency would not
protect the occupants from serious injury.
■ CAUTION ■
Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent
to a drop from approximately 10 feet.
■ Note ■
Several possible scenarios in which the activation of the
CAPS would be appropriate are discussed in Section 10 –
Safety Information, of this Handbook. These include:
• Mid-air collision
• Structural failure
• Loss of control
• Landing in inhospitable terrain
• Pilot incapacitation
All pilots should carefully review the information on CAPS
activation and deployment in Section 10 before operating the
airplane.

And from the SR22 Manual
Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent
to a drop from approximately 13 feet.:cool: