Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[Big Pistons Forever]

Rick

Is there any data comparing the accident rate of those pilots who have done the full COPA/Cirrus training program over those who have not ?


No one on the ground has yet been killed by a descending aircraft descending at 25 mph on top of someone but that is pure luck!


Pace

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLaju5REEZssKeUUncvtj11x2zi1Ozj3agKSSd13S gV0Yz14gf

So this is preferable ?

[sdbeach]

Rick get proper data that actually means something.

Like with like.

Then maybe you will convince some of us who think that the chute is causing incidents due to pilots getting themselves into situation that they had no right to be near. I doubt it! ;)

Doesn't seem like any data or logic would convince Cirrus skeptics. My hope is that the many other readers will form their own opinions.

Anyway, not my job, nor my interest. No other manufacturer than Cirrus releases reliability engineering data. Take that as a clue.


Is there any data comparing the accident rate of those pilots who have done the full COPA/Cirrus training program over those who have not ?
No rate data, just frequency data. We don't know how much flying is done by what portion of pilots.

However, the frequency is pretty startling.

We know that there are about 5400 aircraft produced. We currently have 3600 members of COPA of whom about 3200 are pilots who tell us they fly Cirrus aircraft. Based on various informed estimates, we think there are about 7,000 active pilots who fly Cirrus aircraft including training centers, rental operations, flying clubs, and university training academies.

So, figure about 1/2 of active Cirrus pilots are members of COPA.

If pilots were uniformly distributed, then we would expect about 1/2 of the fatal accidents to be COPA members.

Yet, of the 96 fatal accidents over the lifetime of the fleet, 24 or 25% were COPA members and 10 or 10% were active in COPA recurrent training programs. In the past 18 months, 3 of 12 fatal accident pilots were COPA members (25%), and the year before 3 of 16 fatal accidents were COPA members (19%).

So, instead of expecting 1/2, we actually see 1/4 of the fatal accidents involve COPA members and 1/10 involve active participants.

As for rate data, we wish we had that because we speculate that COPA members fly a lot more than non-COPA members, which would make the comparisons more favorable.

Participation seems to matter.


At this stage is there any more known about the Pilot in this incident, hours in type , what transition training etc?
No.

But those are excellent questions that I have requested be investigated by the AAIB.

If a pilot had engine failure at 2000 feet above a built up area and pulled the chute killing people on the ground I would have him charged with manslaughter
Do you recall people being killed on the ground due to a plane crash? Ever? Anywhere?

Was the pilot charged with manslaughter? Or did they die too?

Cheers
Rick

[Pace]

BPF

I do not see the relevance of that picture to this argument? Other than placing an emotive picture!
I am talking about engine failure where an aircraft has altitude to glide clear or glide to a better place.
Obviously if the aircraft is stricken and going down pull the chute built up area or not as an out of control aircraft descending into a built up area will do far more damage than one under a chute.
But IMO there is risk to people on the ground and to blindly pull te chute in an engine failure situation is negligence

Pace

[thborchert]

Pace,

We are moving in circles. We also encounter problems with reading comprehension skills. Probably mutual. Lets give it up.

Mad-jock,

You are raising interesting points:

-Do you really think more regulation in training would help? Even more than we have now? What percentage of GA accidents do not involve broken rules as it stands today? Rules don't keep people from being stupid.

- As Rick says, it is important to differentiate professional and recreational flying. Professional flying is highly regulated in the way you seem to prefer (doesn't prevent stuff like Air France, either - see a pattern in human behavior that fundamentally prevents more training/regulation/selection to work?). Recreational flying involves a degree of freedom that most parts of our society value quite highly. That may include the freedom of being stupid enough to kill yourself. And it may involve the freedom of putting others at risk. Since there is no such thing as "risk-free", our society has decided to value freedom higher than certain risks. I, for one, prefer that - and I am very worried by the current trend moving in the other direction. Especially since humans are so bad at evaluating and weighing risk -as this thread so impressively demonstrates.

[mad_jock]

Doesn't seem like any data or logic would convince Cirrus skeptics

Oh it really would I promise you.


But I really suspect that it wont prove what you want it to. So you will avoid providing it. Come hell or high water.

There is no logic in the academic sense with your statements so far. Mainly because you have set out with the purpose of proving what you think is correct and fiddling the data to make it fit.

We can do anything with data we like.

there has been 130 airframes involved in incidents out of 5400. Which gives a 2.5% hit rate. That doesn't prove anything. But if there was a public transport machine with 2.5% hull lose in a fleet over 10 years there would be major questions being asked about the pilot training and the design.

Aviation is always fiddling the data, airlines would have us believe that its the safest form of transport. But once your in you find out everything is done by the mile and if you did it by the hour you get a completely different outcome and by the sector its not that great to be honest but not as bad as riding a motorcycle.

So come on then like for like aircraft up to 10 years old and include all that are single engine up to 5700kg. At the moment the auld heaps have a better safety record.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Do you recall people being killed on the ground due to a plane crash? Ever? Anywhere?
Lockerbie is the most often quoted most recent UK example (don't know whether that's accurate or not). The Concorde wasn't in the UK of course.

(Not counting "participants," ie people on the ground who were involved with the flying operations.)

[sdbeach]

Doesn't seem like any data or logic would convince Cirrus skeptics
Oh it really would I promise you.Glad to hear you say that ... until I read the rest of your post! ;)
But I really suspect that it wont prove what you want it to. So you will avoid providing it. Come hell or high water. No avoidance on my part. Just no data on anyone's part. You ask for reasonable data but do you know where to find it? I don't.
There is no logic in the academic sense with your statements so far. Mainly because you have set out with the purpose of proving what you think is correct and fiddling the data to make it fit.Ouch! And to think I had a successful research career before taking up aviation. Of course, you didn't know that, but disrespectful potshots are easy, eh?
So come on then like for like aircraft up to 10 years old and include all that are single engine up to 5700kg. At the moment the auld heaps have a better safety record.Please state your comparative numbers? You seem to know how to calculate the data to prove your point. What is it?

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Lockerbie is the most often quoted most recent UK example (don't know whether that's accurate or not). The Concorde wasn't in the UK of course.Both are transport aviation accidents. Got examples of general aviation accidents? That's the context for this discussion.

Cheers
Rick

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is no logic in the academic sense with your statements so far. Mainly because you have set out with the purpose of proving what you think is correct and fiddling the data to make it fit.

We can do anything with data we like.

.

I would say the argument goes both ways. I don't think any data will change your mind based on what you have posted.

I think both COPA and Cirrus are doing more than any other manufacturer to use an evidence based methodology to shape their training programs to better prepare Cirrus pilots.

The fact that their program doesn't fit the conventional training orthodoxy seems to offend many who post here. So for example despite overwhelmning evidence that in the real world pilots don't often fare very well conducting forced landings the chute is the problem not part of a solution.

Even more nonsensical is the snide comments by several posters about a lack of spin training in the Cirrus training program. The accident record here is also clear, virtually all spin accidents happen so close to the ground recovery is unlikely even if the proper inputs are used.

But really lets think about this for a bit. Bloggins lets the airplane inadvertently get into slow flight and does nothing about it and then inadvertently lets it stall and does nothing about it and then lets the airplane yaw and does nothing about it and so now that he was stupid times three he will suddenly leap into action and recognize the spin and put the proper control actions in the proper order and recover. Yup wouldn't want to concentrate on recognizing and recovering from a developing situation that will lead to a potential stall. Much better to spend a lot of time teaching a skill which almost always won't save you anyway :rolleyes:

The Cirrus training program places all the emphasis on where it matters, recognizing and recovering from the developing bad situation before the aircraft gets close to stalling. That is what I mean by evidence based training over uninformed feelings and mindless repetition of "that's the way we always trained".


The sad part is the fact that there are so many Cirrus pilots that don't take the training, and they seem to be the ones who are having the accidents.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

That's the context for this discussion.
Sure, and I don't have any such examples[1], but that wasn't what you asked.

[1] There are some, of course, involving people related to the aviation activity, but I guessed, although you didn't say so, that you meant to ask only about people on the ground who had nothing to do with what was going on in the air.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The Cirrus training program places all the emphasis on where it matters, recognizing and recovering from the developing bad situation before the aircraft gets close to stalling.
But aren't all pilots trained to do that? - I certainly was and I've never been in a Cirrus. Does a Cirrus need some sort of different, special, stall avoidance and recovery training?

[007helicopter]

The sad part is the fact that there are so many Cirrus pilots that don't take the training, and they seem to be the ones who are having the accidents.

There does appear to be a bias, The COPA members appear to gain an edge on safety awareness, or the safer pilot's are more interested and prepared to spend time and money on training, not sure which it is but I do know membership of COPA is the best value $65.00 dollars I will ever spend annually on aviation.

Rick is a long term prolific contributor and safety guru to the COPA organisation and as I understand it on a purely volunteer basis like all COPA members.

[Fly-by-Wife]

Got examples of general aviation accidents?

Reno, Nevada, 2011. 10 spectators killed, 70 injured.

London, 2013, one pedestrian killed by helicopter crash.

MANILA, 2011, at least 13 people died and several others injured when a light twin aircraft crashed into a shanty town.

FBW

[cats_five]

Reno was an air race where a large number of people gathered to watch the racing. Not commercial flying (no paying passengers or cargo) but also not GA as I think of it.

The London helicopter crash was a commercial flight.

And the Manilla crash I think you mean was also commercial - it was a Queen Air plane on a cargo flight, on 10th Dec 2011.

[On Track]

Interesting cats_five... so how do you define "general aviation" then?

[mad_jock]

And to think I had a successful research career before taking up aviation. Of course, you didn't know that, but disrespectful potshots are easy, eh?

Same here but my line was mechanical engineering.

I don't have a clue about the US safety databases but the UK ones carry the airframe manufacture date for any accident.

You could just go for the types which have been certified in the last 15 years and then factor for the fleet size.

As I said before the way you factor the data makes a huge difference.

Take off and landing is by far the most risky stages of flight so by removing the instructional flights and commercial you have removed the most exposure to risk flights. ie the ones that do the most take off's and landings in instructional and the commercial are the ones which are exposed to the barely legal wx. So to me anyway its is wrong to discount that data.

Another way you could look at the data is to look at the number of flights irrespective of the length of the flight. But again that won't produce the effect your looking for as C150/C152's and other training flights are banging out the sectors a day without having many problems.

And it would change my view. Just like as BPF says I was a teach them spinning type of instructor and when looking at the data am now firmly in the teach them how not to get in the situation of a likely spin.

Although for advanced handling for experienced pilots post PPL when done by an aero's instructor that knows what they are doing and in a machine that's fit for purpose I think its good training even if only done once.

And GA to me is anything with a single pilot, one engine and under 5700kg.

[thborchert]

You could just go for the types which have been certified in the last 15 years and then factor for the fleet size.

Why don't you just present your analysis of the data? After all, when you make such bold claims as "the auld heaps are safer", I'm sure you've done that kind of analysis before to be able to arrive at that statement. Right?

[mad_jock]

We can see that already by the data given on the cirrius site.

Its just that they decided to remove the instructional and commercial GA flights out of the data so that it looks as if the accident rate is below the average.

The fact that those flights in general are operated in the risker phases of flight for longer ie takeoff and approach/landing should mean that they have a higher risk so therefore higher chance of fatalities. But that's not shown out. They have to remove them to make the numbers look good. I might add all the agricultural crop spraying and the like will be in there as well which is even higher risk again.

In general the training fleets are 20-40 years old with some new machines thrown in. And the commercials will be slightly younger but the majority of them will be more than 10 years old.

[thborchert]

One more try, just because this quote makes it such a good starting point:

sorry but if a pilot looses a healthy aircraft on instruments he should not be there!

Great sentiment! And so right, in an ideal world. However, those pilots ARE up there. Have a look at the accident statistics and you see that they are up there in all kinds of aircraft - Cessnas, Pipers, Airbii, Twin Otters and, yes, Cirrii. So our first point of discussion becomes:

1. Do Cirrus pilots have a higher percentage of "losing a healthy aircraft" than pilots of other aircraft? This has been analyzed quite a bit. The only person to present actual numbers in this thread so far has been Rick. The answer (not only from Rick, but from all who have actually looked at the numbers) seems to be: No, Cirrus pilots do not have a higher percentage of doing dumb stuff than the rest of GA. Anyone (and especially mad_jock), feel free to present numbers showing otherwise. Until you do, just claiming something doesn't make it so.

So, as regrettable as it might be, pilots do end up there. In all kinds of airplanes. We can debate how training and regulation might change that. We can also debate which manufacturers involve themselves much in training and which don't. But leaving that discussion aside and accepting the fact that pilots DO mess up in "healthy" airplanes, the next point of discussion now becomes:

2. Should pilots "losing a perfectly healthy aircraft" be left to crash and die or is there something wrong with offering them a way out? Frankly, I'm not even willing to debate that. I consider myself a master cynic, but that exceeds my limits.

Finally, the big hit with some folks in this thread:

3. Are innocent bystanders more endangered by our pilot WHO HAS LOST IT ("it" being control of the aircraft) going down in a high-energy impact at full speed, or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious.

So, here we are. Unless someone can prove with actual numbers that a Cirrus somehow changes the propensity of pilots to do dumb stuff (which Rick has tried - and failed), we're left with

a) questions/problems applying to aviation in general, but not specific to the Cirrus.
b) questions around a safety device that has the chance to change the outcome of something that pilots get themselves into with disturbing regularity regardless of what aircraft they fly. Change the outcome both for those in the aircraft AND outside, I might add.

We can see that already by the data given on the cirrius site.

Sorry, I can't. Help me, please.

Its just that they decided to remove the instructional and commercial GA flights out of the data so that it looks as if the accident rate is below the average.

They did? How do you know? Why don't you put back in what you consider missing and show us those new numbers? I can't see what you seem to see. I don't know all these numbers by heart. Help me, please.

Thanks!

[mad_jock]

It all comes from this report

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf

If you go down to the GA bit.

Then compare it back to the graph in

Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CirrusSafety.aspx)

You can see they have been fiddling with the numbers.

[thborchert]

You can see they have been fiddling with the numbers.

Sorry, still don't see it. Why don't you present your numbers?

[mad_jock]

Because its a pain in the backside to extract them from a PDF file.

But basically the green line on the graph from cirrus pilots is the national average and the cirrus is above it. They decided that because the instruction flights and other GA have such a low fatality rate they would remove them which then brought the national average up to make the cirrus look safer.

The fact is though that the majority of the aircraft missed out will be in the +10 years old with steam instruments and age issues. Also as well several of the accidents/incidence have also been on instruction flights with the higher risk carried with that.

COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CPPPHome.aspx)

Formalised quality training like that in my opinion will do more to reduce fatalities than having a chute in the back. Linked in with a couple of hours abnormal procedures in the sim.

Funnily enough its basically what a commercial pilot has to do to renew their type rating in Europe. But we do also get a refresher every 6 months but without the rating renewal.

So if your really are serious about wanting to protect yourself and loved ones while flying go and do something like that course every year and an abnormal procedures sim session.

In the commercial world the sim sessions are tapered for your experience. Getting progressively harder as you get more experience. There is also nothing to stop you requesting situations which you have experienced in the last year to revisit them to see if there was a better solution to the one which you used.

Perfect example for this chap if the reports about the runway change are correct. Get into the sim set it up again and this time have a play with the different ways of dealing with it. Then go flying again.

[thborchert]

Formalised quality training like that in my opinion will do more to reduce fatalities than having a chute in the back.They're by no means mutually exclusive and aim at completely different stages of an accident sequence, as I have tried to explain.

Perfect example for this chap if the reports about the runway change are correct. Get into the sim set it up again and this time have a play with the different ways of dealing with it. Then go flying again.

And it is likely he can only do that because of the chute. Great, isn't it?

[mad_jock]

Nope he shouldn't have been PIC of the aircraft if he couldn't have handled such a change without crashing.

Mind you at least in Europe now they will be tested every year for the IR it may help matters.

The cross over competency test failure rate is going to be interesting. Especially as the examiner is centrally issued and a tame one can't bought in. And you can't use the AP for the initial or the advanced features of the nav kit.

[cockney steve]

[QUOTE][or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious./QUOTE]

Not really!.....All UK lorries seem to be fitted with an ear-piercing bleeper ,interspersed with a synthesised voice" caution , vehicle reversing"

What's to stop similar technology when the rocket pops?

BLEEP..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing"..........BLEEP ..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing".......BLEEP..........:8

The vegetables standing gawking would then not be able to claim..."Well, it come out of nowhere , Di'n it....there weren't no noise or nuffink, it were eerie ,like. Well, there were a bang but I fort it were the local dealer's door bein stove in again by the drug squad.* "

* alter local vernacular as required

[thborchert]

Nope he shouldn't have been PIC of the aircraft if he couldn't have handled such a change without crashing.

Not again! Please!

Great soundbite, but completely against all practical experience. People do dumb stuff. No amount of testing and training will get around that. The number of airline crew screwing up royally is endless.

Or, in other words: Chute happens! Deal with it!

[cats_five]

Interesting cats_five... so how do you define "general aviation" then?

No payment to fly or watch. What a PPL / NPPL can do.

The second two examples you quoted whilst not large aircraft were both flights where the pilot was being paid. There are commercial elements to the racing as the spectators paid to watch, plus a website urging us to donate, plus sponsors, plus mega-bucks spent on the planes. Even if the pilots are not paid it's about as amateur as F1 racing is.

The second two examples would also have needed a CPL and I believe the racing has specific licence requirements as well.

Instructional flying for a PPL is a form of commercial flying by my definition - P1 is being paid and has specific licence and medical requitements to fulfill.

[thborchert]

Here (http://www.examiner.com/article/freak-plane-crash-kills-jogger)'s an example that should fit the requested mold. One of very few. Wanna bet what the outcome would have been with a chute? Chances of lethally hitting that jogger when coming down vertically as opposed to laterally coming in at 65 or so knots? And look how much good the "pilot under control of the aircraft" bit did!

[peterh337]

Not much info has come out on this but looking at RGV's statement on Flyer (they must have spoken to the pilot) and assuming that is really what happened, this particular chute pull is going to cause a lot of questions to be asked, and the Cirrus BRS chute "pull the chute when in any trouble whatsoever" position is going to be even harder to defend than it was on previous occasions.

[Pace]

Peter

Totally agree I think there needs to be far more thought and TRAINING concerning when and where to pull instead of the stick heads in the sand attitude by some here

Pace

[sdbeach]

It all comes from this report
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf
If you go down to the GA bit.
Then compare it back to the graph in
Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
You can see they have been fiddling with the numbers.
Fiddling? Don't know how. While I love down-east music from my Canadian heritage, I take your comment as an insult.

For the record, here is Figure 40 from that NTSB study of US Civil Aviation Accidents:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles.00.00.00.22.56.Accident +Stats/NTSB_2D00_Review_2D00_GA_2D00_Accidents_2D00_2009_2D00_ARA11 01_2D00_Figure40.png_2D00_600x450.png

Note that the fatal accident rate line is the one on the bottom and matches the trend of increasing fatal accidents in Personal flying. While the scale is compressed, the trend is counter to improvement.

Where this all started for me was the shocking slide presented by the NTSB at the opening of their GA Safety Forum in June 2012:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles.00.00.00.22.56.Accident +Stats/1_2D00_Opening_2D00_Jill_5F00_Demko_5F00_Page_5F00_09.png_2D 00_600x450.png
All GA is the black line, and most of us have focused on moving that trend. But it blends relatively safer purposes for corporate and instructional flying that few Cirrus aircraft pursue. Consequently, I have since included both two rates for comparison -- the overall GA rate and the Personal and Business rate. No fiddling. Just a purposeful use of NTSB data to provide a better comparision.

Note: your complaint about fiddling with the numbers applies to the NTSB. And furthermore, both numbers were in my earlier post.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Its just that they decided to remove the instructional and commercial GA flights out of the data so that it looks as if the accident rate is below the average.
It was decided for other reasons. What are the comparable activities for Cirrus pilots?

Relatively few Cirrus aircraft are used in instruction, although some are. So, why compare a Cirrus to Cessnas and Pipers and Diamonds and Grobs that differ both in purpose and expertise on board.

Relatively fewer Cirrus aircraft are involved in commercial flying, although some are. So why compare a Cirrus to twinjets or turboprops or twin engine planes, etc. flown by commercial pilots operating under Part 135 opspecs that involve check flights every 6 months?

And both of those activities involve about 40% of the flight activity in the annual GA survey conducted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for the FAA.

Since the overall GA rate includes a substantial amount (40%) of flight activity that does not relate to the Cirrus fleet, why compare the Cirrus fleet against the overall GA rate?

Ah, because it makes the Cirrus look bad, eh?

Cheers
Rick

[mad_jock]

Its only an insult where I come from if you stick kiddie in front of it.

Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.

You need to include the instructional because its mainly the same class of aircraft you are looking at. And also to be honest the only time I see a cirrus flying it has an instructor in the RHS where I am and that's 3 aircraft. Both instructors I hear on the kingairs as well so presume they know what they are doing.

The summary of the median hours is also quite interesting in that report. 45-55 years old and 200-250 hours on type is the danger window. Which I can understand to be honest.

Why include them? Because that's what a lot of people use them for as well as instruction. Gawd knows how many commercial wannabies have banged out the hours touring round FL flying 2-3 hour flights which is exactly what you guys do, just you go a bit further. A nav ex is just a flight from A to B which is exactly what you are doing.

The corporate and TP stuff is fair enough to leave out but you need to include all the data from that class of aircraft which is single engine petrol, single pilot. And I say again yours is a young fleet against the bulk of the other aircraft in that class.

[sdbeach]

Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.
Huh? Show me.

Cheers
Rick

[mad_jock]

Fig 41 and Fig 46.

[OldManRiver]

Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.

I hesitate to contribute as I've never even seen a Cirrus, let alone flown one. My preferred 'mount' is a Super Cub or, if unavailable, a Cessna 172. BUT I - any many others in similar circumstances - have spent much time over extremely inhospitable terrain (on wildlife work, in my case) where there is simply nowhere to go if the motor quits - unbroken bush/forest, hills, ravines, narrow bouldered riverbeds &c, and no human habitation whatsoever. If we don't accept the risk, then what we consider to be important work just doesn't get done, period. Frankly, I would have given my right arm for a 'chute and would have used it without hesitation if the engine quit.

Which it did, once. By the grace of whatever, I was smack-bang o/h an isolated strip after crossing some 50nm of said inhospitable terrain, so no big deal, but it could have been very different.

Unusual circumstances, maybe, but applicable to a lot of people in the further-flung bits of the world, often flying VFR/CAVU and with no other complications and that mythology, if it does in fact exist, is not going to be too helpful to them. Sound training, airmanship, currency, and all the help you can get - including technological advances like 'chutes and proper training in their use - seem a much better bet to me; and if "the system" isn't working like that, maybe said system needs some fixing! OK, I'll get back in my box now...!

[sdbeach]

Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.Huh? Show me.Fig 41 and Fig 46.
Okay, both figures referenced show events causing fatal accidents. Explain how that relates to your wish to compare Cirrus aircraft?

Other than anecdotal and personal observations, do you have any data about the flight activity of Cirrus aircraft?

Cheers
Rick

[maxred]

This one looks as though it may run longer than the last one:8

Whilst MJ, and Sdbeach get very hung up on the stats, the fundamental gets lost in the noise. Training.

I have not flown a Cirrus, therefore cannot comment on its handling qualities, but, as with the aeroplane and its internal avionic systems, it would appear top of the range, and a very decent product.

I fly Beech products, but. as with Beech, Cirrus owners deem it necessary to have a proficiency training programme for some models. Beech, with the American Bonanza Society, have the BPPP, a proficiency flight training programme to ensure that when individuals purchase the product, they have adequate training resources, which will prepare them for the differences inherent in the product they have just taken ownership of.

Reason, these products fly like mini airliners, the newer ones now have sophisticated panels, be it Garmin, or Avidyne, or whatever, and they are fast. Therefore, they are not like other products where we just jump in, open the throttle and go. The owner/pilot requires to understand the intrinsic qualities of operating not only the aeroplane, ie take off/cruise/landing, but the systems and how they work, That requires training, and I firmly believe, that anyone who has the ability to purchase a new Cirrus 22, should have the ability to get themselves adequately comfortable with the systems.

And here is the rub. There will be some, armed with the knowledge that a BRS system sits in the roof, MAY think that they do not require all of the training, and fly off inadequately prepared for what they may encounter. That is not to say that other products, which do not have BRS, the individual may not have done it also, but it is my opinion, human beings being what they are, will attempt the flight.

It is anecdotal, but in a number of Cirrus accidents, this would appear to have been the case. That is not an argument for, or against, the chute, but I do think the point is relevent. So, COPA, or BPPP, or whatever, I would suggest would be a consideration for any potential pilot/operator.

And as an afterthought, the Beech progarmme came about with concerns over the ability of some to handle the products, and a reasonable number of fatalities in Beech products.

[sdbeach]

And as an afterthought, the Beech progarmme came about with concerns over the ability of some to handle the products, and a reasonable number of fatalities in Beech products.
And the Cirrus proficiency program came about because of the success of the Bonanza program, combined with a desire to solicit insurers in those early days. Interestingly, the Cessna Advanced Aircraft Recurrent Training (CAART) program for Columbia/Covalis aircraft followed on after the CPPP. Good programs. Gets results.

Cheers
Rick

[mad_jock]

Its training I have actually been banging on about and the suitability of the pilost that have been flying them.

The chute cures all mentality is the problem along with dubious claims that it its currently a safety improvement.

In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.

[maxred]

In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type

Absolutely 100%. It is the pilot mindset that has to alter, not the aeroplane, and has that not always been the case?

[sdbeach]

Its training I have actually been banging on about and the suitability of the pilost that have been flying them.MJ, if you would just advocate for more training, we'd agree over a beer and try to figure out how to do that.
The chute cures all mentality is the problemStanding up a straw horse makes it easy to knock down. No one I know advocates such a blatant misrepresentation of the Cirrus and COPA training initiatives.... along with dubious claims that it its currently a safety improvement.

In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.And this is where you lose my support.

For the 70 people who survived a Cirrus parachute deployment, they might differ with your assessment.

For the 115 people who died in a Cirrus fatal accident where the accident chain was similar to a survivable chute pull, they might wish to be among the survivors.

For the skeptics, nothing seems logical to justify pulling the parachute.

If it were simply fixable by improved training, then why don't we see lots and lots of improvement over the past several decades when the fatal accident rate has not gone down much in other types of aircraft? Surely, those instructors in other types of aircraft realize the challenges. Yet, we see fatal accidents in other types over and over and over again.

Cheers
Rick

[Big Pistons Forever]

Absolutely 100%. It is the pilot mindset that has to alter, not the aeroplane, and has that not always been the case?

Yes and as long as we have GA in its current construct the authorities give you lots of latitude to be stupid. An entirely acceptable state of affairs in my opinion because the alternative would be an oppressive level of regulation like that which exist for the airlines. They have an impressive safety record by virtue of a very rigorous set of experience/training/checking/currency requirements and
operations that solely involve IFR flights from one major airport to another.

While we all wish nobody would be stupid and obviously should actively promote good initial and recurrent training the unfortunate reality is non professional part time pilots are still sometimes going to get in over their heads. I am sure this pilot did not start his flight with the intention of getting so bent out of shape he felt the only alternative was to pull the chute.

The bottom line with respect to this accident is simple. Better he floated to the ground at 25 kts then crashed in a vertical dive doing 200 kts after losing control, killing everyone in the plane and maybe someone on the ground.

[mad_jock]

But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the back.

Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.

get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.

With a similar experienced group of pilots get them to plan the same route but in a C182 or the like without a chute. And see what route they take and when they bug out.

If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board.

Its not the chute we have issues with when used after all other forms of airmanship and sensible pre-caution have been taken.

Yes mother nature is a bitch and you can get your arse bitten. 95% of being a pilot is not to stick your arse in mothers mouth to begin with.

[Lone_Ranger]

I do wonder why the prop was turning on impact, barring something really odd like a snapped crankshaft allowing the engine to windmill at hardly any forward speed, one has to assume the bloke didnt even switch the bl00dy mags off............which would be a tad remiss, doncha thunk

The cozy-safe effect of the BRS everyone is talking about, is a known factor...its called 'Risk Compensation' and is a well researched human reaction..it exists and will be a factor in EVERY accident where there is a percieved safety net

You really can't argue that it isnt so, only how large the effect is

[007helicopter]

I do wonder why the prop was turning on impact, barring something really odd like a snapped crankshaft allowing the engine to windmill at hardly any forward speed, one has to assume the bloke didnt even switch the bl00dy mags off............which would be a tad remiss, doncha thunk

Agreed, but assuming he was overloaded / stressed or whatever, by the time he pulls the chute which would be a pretty stressful and disorientating experience, it has quite a violent rocking motion as it settles, depending on altitude he would have seconds not minutes to sort everything out, I have heard from others in a similar situation that the logical calm thinking brain has gone mushy by this point.

I would like to think in the same situation I would be aware enough to do all the post CAPS checks as i have practiced them, but who knows.

[sdbeach]

But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the back.

Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.

get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.Actually, such scenarios have been part of the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program since 2005. So, for 8 years, COPA has been facilitating aeronautical decision-making discussions and reviews. We have presented three such courses, Single Pilot Resource Management, Risk Evaluation and Emergency Psychology, and CAPS Decision Making. In my humble opinion, this has had a material impact on the Cirrus community.
With a similar experienced group of pilots get them to plan the same route but in a C182 or the like without a chute. And see what route they take and when they bug out.

If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board. Good grief. Do you really think that attempting this demonstration would convince any skeptics? And why would the Cirrus community entertain such a request? Perhaps you would be helpful in raising the funds to accommodate your desires?

FYI, it costs COPA members about a quarter of a million dollars to run the CPPP programs. And we price things to break even.
Its not the chute we have issues with when used after all other forms of airmanship and sensible pre-caution have been taken.I respectfully disagree. IMHO, these debates are endless because no amount of data, logic, or training will satisfy a skeptic who holds a contrary belief. We've seen it over and over again when so called righteous parachute pulls have been denigrated. The confirmation bias of bad piloting because the pilot was flying a Cirrus is unquenchable, it seems. The twists in logic, the endless debates, the misquoting of factual information, the generalization of small samples to the whole Cirrus community seem endemic to these skeptics and their forums.

You've just proved it can be a Sisyphean task.

Cheers
Rick

[maxred]

You've just proved it can be a Sisyphean task.

Wow SD, got me on that one.

MJ- from a quick google search


n
(Myth & Legend / Classical Myth & Legend) Greek myth a king of Corinth, punished in Hades for his misdeeds by eternally having to roll a heavy stone up a hill: every time he approached the top, the stone escaped his grasp and rolled to the bottom

I have gone off to ponder, that and a beer...

Rick, during that beer, I watched the animation I believe you have just posted regarding the Cirrus aerobatic event. That is quite shocking, and disturbing.

[sdbeach]

I have gone off to ponder, that and a beer...Ah, the sorrows of time zones . . . still lunch here!

Cheers
Rick

[thborchert]

Ah, someone died from being stupid. And all of a sudden, it is "shocking" and "disturbing". Whereas, if they survive being stupid...

The bigotry is what is shocking and disturbing.

[sdbeach]

Rick, during that beer, I watched the animation I believe you have just posted regarding the Cirrus aerobatic event. That is quite shocking, and disturbing.For certain, this accident upset a lot of people in the Cirrus community also. Amazing progression of three rolls, one at 1700 feet, another at 600 feet and the fatal one at 220 feet. What is not reported in the investigation files are the activities of the two other acrobatic airplanes flying in some kind of formation. Were they doing rolls at low level also? Was there peer pressure? Clearly the aircraft is placarded as not authorized for acrobatic maneuvers.

It's us, the pilots. Not the plane.

Cheers
Rick

[On Track]

cats_five, my definition of GA also includes:

flying training
sightseeing flights
search and rescue
medical flights (flying doctor, aerial ambulance)
agricultural operations (mustering, crop dusting)
charter flights (passengers and/or freight)
mail deliveries
traffic reporting
sharkspotting
coastal surveillance
minerals exploration
inspection of power lines
bushfire detection and firefighting
transport to onshore and offshore mining facilities
aerial photography and newsgathering by media companies...

just to name a few. Most of those are commercial operations and they are all GA.

[maxred]

The bigotry is what is shocking and disturbing

I do not quite understand that comment.

On watching the animation, what was, to quote, shocking and disturbing, was the animated presentation that it was not a one off botched roll. It was all planned, it was all flown, it was a third roll, plus some pretty low level flying.

These guys were flying the thing, with no understanding, nor appreciation of the operating parameters of the vehicle. To watch it in animation, was to confirm the absurdity of the manoeuvres, which in a sense, confirmed my view that it is not the aeroplanes that we have to change, it is pilot mindsets, or lack of, that need to change.

[Pace]

But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the back

MJ

Personally I do not think nearly enough credence is given to this and I tend to agree a lot of the chute pulls are because these pilots are in places or situations that they are ill equipt to deal with and have been lured there by the comfort zone of the chute.
Take a car and fit high explosives to each corner. Get someone to drive that car through busy streets and they would be ultra cautious knowing that one slip or mistake would cost them their lives.
Remove the explosives and they would drive around the busy streets with gay abandon.
There is nothing wrong with the Cirrus it is a high performance touring aircraft with very modern and complex nav and safety features.
It has a lively roll rate (I timed it as near a Firefly aerobatic machine in its roll rate which means its easy to overcontrol in cloud.
That also means you have to be current and on top of the game to fly IFR in IMC.
Sadly many are not Even more sad is the comments made
There is nothing wrong with the BRS potentially one of the biggest advancements in small plane safety.
I do not like single engine at night any distance from an airport but I know I would fly far more at night with a Cirrus because of the chute which would give me the confidence to fly at night while a conventional single piston aircraft would not!
There was an accident where a pilot pushed on in icing conditions iced up and had to pull the chute.
Would he have been so gung ho in a non shuted aircraft? I doubt it!
Many of the Cirrus pilots come from flying simple aircraft like the 172.
Usually monied businessmen low hours and low experience and treat the chute as a get out of jail for free if it all goes wrong,
There is nothing wrong with that but as with a twin the chute or other engine in a twin will give you that extra confidence which will lure you into a trap

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

[QUOTE=Pace;7886856]

There was an accident where a pilot pushed on in icing conditions iced up and had to pull the chute.
Would he have been so gung ho in a non shuted aircraft? I doubt it!


Pace[/QUOTE

How do you explain the many, many examples of pilots pushing on in icing conditions they could not handle and then crashing, in comparable to Cirrus aircraft with no chute ?

All I see is emotion in this argument with little factual data to back it up. There is one indeniable fact however. There are people who are not dead because of the chute. Unless you believe that every chute pull was the reckless result of a pilot pushing his limits solely because he knew he had the chute then there is a more people alive than if the Cirrus did not have a chute.

I have no problem with that.

[sdbeach]

But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the backPersonally I do not think nearly enough credence is given to this and I tend to agree a lot of the chute pulls are because these pilots are in places or situations that they are ill equipt to deal with and have been lured there by the comfort zone of the chute.
...
Many of the Cirrus pilots come from flying simple aircraft like the 172.
Usually monied businessmen low hours and low experience and treat the chute as a get out of jail for free if it all goes wrong,
There is nothing wrong with that but as with a twin the chute or other engine in a twin will give you that extra confidence which will lure you into a trap
You agree with MJ that the parachute lures pilots into a trap. Got any facts for your opinions?

This is the nub of the debate. You make claims that I believe are based on personal interpretations rather than any examination of the real situations, buoyed by speculative judgments rather than factual investigations, and confirmation bias rather than impartial examination.

Have you interviewed any of the pilots who pulled the parachute?

Have you determined which accidents or parachute pulls were in your category of "lured there by the comfort zone of the chute"?

Pace, MJ, for reference, I have studied every fatal and parachute investigation report for Cirrus aircraft. That's a bunch. Way too many people have killed a perfectly good and safe airplane.

Furthermore, I have personally interviewed 14 of the 34 pilots involved in survivable parachute events. I've been looking for evidence of the lure you claim is there, looking for lack of training or lack of proficiency. Hard to find.

The lure you denigrate was not a primary factor in the accident chains of their situations. Lots of other factors come into play, including unforecast weather, mechanical or avionics surprises, disorientation, and pilot incapacitation.

I cannot and will not argue that the lure is not there. I know of Cirrus pilots who act recklessly and dangerously. Apparently, that is not unique to Cirrus pilots.

However, I will challenge you and other skeptics to come up with some evidence that the lure of the parachute is there.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

There was an accident where a pilot pushed on in icing conditions iced up and had to pull the chute.
Would he have been so gung ho in a non shuted aircraft? I doubt it!
How do you explain the many, many examples of pilots pushing on in icing conditions they could not handle and then crashing, in comparable to Cirrus aircraft with no chute ?BPF, by coincidence, I am now based at the same airport where that accident pilot was based. I've talked with his instructor who runs the Cirrus Training Center. So, I have gained some further insight into this accident at Norden, CA (assuming that Pace was referring to this icing accident).

The circumstances were a delayed night departure over the Sierra Mountains from Reno to the San Francisco Bay Area. (Delayed was important because another Cirrus pilot flew the same route an hour earlier and did so in visual daylight conditions avoiding buildups.) The weather briefer did not describe icing conditions and the investigators faulted the weather service for not providing better icing forecast products that are now in routine use in the US.

The pilot flew a Cirrus with both a parachute and the TKS weeping wing ice protection system. The instructor believes that the pilot was prudent in his pre-flight planning to treat those both as tools for escapes.

Except for one big difference. This pilot had an irrational belief that to exit icing conditions one must climb. The instructor despaired at trying to change that belief and encouraged descent to warmer air or turn 180 degrees back to non-icing conditions. Didn't take. And in the accident, the pilot was given higher for traffic, encountered icing, asked for and was given higher, and never got on top, iced up, descended at over 300 KIAS and the parachute was deployed and ripped off the airframe. That's an airspeed over twice the demonstrated deployment speed.

Was this pilot lured into conditions beyond his abilities? Absolutely, YES!

Was the parachute and the weeping wing features contributory? Possibly but not definitely, according to his instructor's assessment.

Did the pilot have other outs and make a poor aeronautical decision? Tragically, YES!


Cheers
Rick

[007helicopter]

Take a car and fit high explosives to each corner. Get someone to drive that car through busy streets and they would be ultra cautious knowing that one slip or mistake would cost them their lives.

Pace equally take a car - fit air bags, ABS breaks, Hi encap rating etc, does it mean we go off tearing around the streets like a nutter, I don't think so, reckless drivers drive any vehicle like that.


Also plenty of non chute aircraft seem to perish in ice including highly capable aircraft with presumably highly trained pilots such as TBM's etc.

[Pace]

007

When I fly I never do anything where I do not have an OUT ! To fly where your options are closed is playing Russian Roulette!

Flying on a black night in a single, flying over fog banks in a single!
Engine failure ? And you are in deep trouble !

In both situations the BRS would give me that OUT or option I would want to make the flight which I would be very wary of doing in a non chuted aircraft

So in those situations the chute would lure me into flying in conditions I would be wary of in a non chuted aircraft!

I am a current and experienced instrument pilot ! There are those who are not ! Surely it is not rocket science to realize that in the same way the chute will give them an OUT for flying in conditions they are not totally happy with?

I am sure without doubt that the comfort factor plays a part how big is the question?
That does not detract from the chute offering the biggest advance in safety but with every advance come negatives too !

As with flying twin engine aircraft the extra engine brings more options ! With more options more choices! With more choices the option to make the wrong choice IMO the chuted Cirrus which is a great plane fits the above too

Rick

For those who take the view that you should pull for everything including a bad case of wind :E you have failed to discuss that concern or the effects of winds on descending aircraft under a chute.

You presume in the case of an engine failure that the aircraft will descend vertically at 25 mph ( I use mph to compare car speeds) you presume a still Day !

Take a windy day say 40 mph winds does your advice hold true to pull the chute in the event of engine failure?

You will now descend at 25 mph but travel horizontally at speed slamming into hard objects at speeds which in a car could kill you and under no control from you the pilot. You would experience not just a descent impact but a forward impact too.
I know which option I would take on a windy day with half decent landing sites.

With a conventional forced landing you would use those winds to your advantage for low ground speed landings into wind and have control over not hitting hard stuff on the ground ! So on windy days do you still promote the idea of pulling the chute ?

Frankly with statistics you can use them to promote whatever you want but I still feel a lot more thought needs to go into training over the chute and its use.
You and others here write as if we are two camps the for the chute and the against the chute. I am totally for the chute but not blindly used

Pace

[pulse1]

Pace equally take a car - fit air bags, ABS breaks, Hi encap rating etc, does it mean we go off tearing around the streets like a nutter, I don't think so, reckless drivers drive any vehicle like that.

When it became compulsory to wear seat belts in cars it was shown that the average driver actually drove at higher speed and that accidents to pedestrians became worse. Everyone has a comfortable risk factor and will automatically compensate their actions accordingly. I believe that Pace has it about right.

[thborchert]

When it became compulsory to wear seat belts in cars it was shown that the average driver actually drove at higher speed and that accidents to pedestrians became worseCould you kindly provide the source for that? Thanks.

Also, are we really claiming now that seatbelts in cars are a bad thing? Wow!

[Aphrican]

The whole question boils down to one of risk homeostasis.

It is up to individual pilots to fly a SR2x BRS in the same manner as they would fly a comparable high performance single without a BRS. If they do so, they will be safer in SR2xs than in other high performance singles.

From Wikipedia : 'Booth's rule #2', often attributed to skydiving pioneer Bill Booth, states that "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant".

As Rick says, it is the pilots and not the airplanes.

[Pace]

Also, are we really claiming now that seatbelts in cars are a bad thing? Wow!

He did not say that! Or that injuries to belted drivers increased :ugh: He said speeds increased as did accidents to PEDESTRIANS (Pedestrians do not wear seatbelts :ok: )which I also read some time back and can well believe

Pace

[Aphrican]

The various studies referred to here : Risk compensation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis)

I know that it is only Wikipedia but some of the links can be followed to the source material.

[mad_jock]

Have you interviewed any of the pilots who pulled the parachute?


Commercially we have pretty much given up interviewing pilots there version of events very rarely match whats on the CVR and FDR/QDR.

They also have a habit of telling lies so they don't appear to be as stupid and as incompetent as the flight data proves. And to interview someone properly post incident there is a special course you need to go on which basically means you have to go round in circles and jump backwards and forwards to see where the holes are. I haven't done it BTW just been on the receiving end of it.

There as many references you like on the end of this article.

Risk compensation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation)

Who's going to add a bit onto that article about cirrus pilots :D

I remember getting lectures on it in my engineering degree.

It follows across a broad spectrum of activity's skiing, driving.

There are actually loads of papers on it but you won't be able to access them unless you can get into a uni library which has the academic journals back catalogue on microfiche or DVD.

Its not the case that we are claiming that seat belts are bad just that they didn't actually have the safety effect that was envisaged by quite a wide margin. This also had the knock on effect that another group of people were put into more danger than before the introduction.

The same with cyclists they hit pedestrians hard and now they have a helmet this causes more damage than pre helmet to the pedestrian so add in the higher risk taken by some cyclists and the higher impact speeds more pedestrians get hurt.

They have just gone through the circle in Rugby they started going down the armour route and the injury's increased and also the severity of the injury's. They have now got rid of the amour and things have gone back to as before.

Must admit I was chatting about this with the FO this morning. And he has just sent me this.

Cirrus Chute Deployment Fails Over Texas, Pilot Still Makes Safe Landing | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053)

Bit of a bastard but at least he got down safe. Bet he won't go near a thundercell again. To add I have never had a problem with steam instruments near cells. I have had EFIS give me black screens and standby instruments 4 times. I have 4 times as many hours on steam as I do on EFIS.

[englishal]

Flying on a black night in a single flying over fog banks in a single!
Engine failure ? And you are in deep trouble !
In both situations the BRS would give me that OUT or option I would want to make the flight which I would be very wary of doing in a non chuted aircraft
So in those situations the chute would lure me into flying in conditions I would be wary of in a non chutesd aircraft!
Pace, that is because you are older and wiser, and dare I say it, a Multi Engine pilot! When I first started flying, I didn't think twice about flying at night over the California mountains. I did a lot of it, and it never concerned me even in an old PA28 with no moving map GPS or any gizmos.

Now, older and wiser, my flying style has changed. I tend to rent ME aeroplanes over California, and I tend to rent newer aeroplanes. I am more wary about where I fly too.

If I had crashed the PA28 into the mountains, I'd have just been another statistic, but had I had a Cirrus and parachute, and pulled the chute, everyone here would be discussing my piloting skills and ADM.

I would probably take a Cirrus over these same mountains as the parachute would add that extra layer of safety so in this respect perhaps the parachute does lure people into flying in more hostile environments. But with a proper risk assessment I don't see anything wrong with this. The plane is a means of transport and there is an element of risk or we'd all hang up our headsets and take EasyJet instead.

Having said that, I'd probably make the journey anyway, except the buttocks might be a bit more clenched. It did occur to me as I flew with my buddy down the Colorado river in shorts and T shirt, in a DA40, in the middle of absolutely nowhere on a very hot day (41C at Calexico) that if we crashed we might be in deep doo doo as we only had half a bottle of gatorade onboard. We still made the flight though and thoroughly enjoyable it was too.

[mad_jock]

But with a proper risk assessment I don't see anything wrong with this.

The fact that you include having the chute onboard and alter your profile from what you would do with out one is proof of point of what we are saying.

Cirrus pilots do fly in a risker manner than they would in a different type of aircraft.

[Cessnafly]

Cirrus Chute Deployment Fails Over Texas, Pilot Still Makes Safe Landing | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053)

:8

Whoopsy daisy!

[Lone_Ranger]

I think most of us here are saying the same thing......Risk compensation exists and any safety device will be factored in by the pilot, its a pretty much undeniable fact unless you are selling a BRS' system, when it seems you must endlessly argue against any possible downside to the system.

CIRRUS OWNERS PLEASE NOTE: nowhere does the above state that BRS' does'nt save lives

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I think people are talking about good risk taking (insurance against engine failure whilst flying over mountains) vs. bad risk taking (deliberately flying into forecast bad weather relying on knowing you've got an out if it goes pear-shaped), a bit like the difference between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor?

[Aphrican]

My questions (and answers) :

- Is anyone involved in aviation (manufacturers, pilots, mechanics, controllers, linemen etc) perfect? No
- Should everyone involved strive for perfection even if it is unobtainable? Yes
- If someone makes a mistake do they need to die? No
- Is the BRS a relatively new and valuable tool available to some pilots to potentially stay alive after making a mistake? Yes
- Does risk homeostasis exist? Yes
- Is risk homeostasis a factor that Cirrus pilots need to consider more carefully than most GA pilots? Yes
- Are Cirrus pilots inferior to other GA pilots because they have the BRS available to them? No

[Steevo25]

I have been reading this thread with interest as it does strike a few chords with what I personally already suspected. The question of 'Does a BRS swing the balance of whether the pilot will fly or not?'.

Where my aircraft is based, there are 3 x Cirrus SR22 down there. One is owned by a fairly famous person. There have been many times that I have been down there and the weather has been very marginal. So marginal in fact that the air around the airfield is empty and all the aircrafts are on the ground.

I have been in the restaurant where everyone is talking about the weather and standing there looking out the window with iPhones/iPads in full use checking Metars, TAFs and weather forecasts.

Just as you are standing there, you hear the hum of engines starting up and going past the window is a Cirrus aircraft. Minutes later up in to the sky it goes and very quickly disappears in to the cloud.

There have been many occasions where I have seen this happen. I have also over heard the planning conversation before the flight took place where the pilots were discussing whether to go up or not.

Now I know that these aircrafts are well equipped and I know the pilots flying these particular aircrafts are IMC rated with a fair few hours behind them. But there are many other aircrafts down there also fairly highly equipped flown by pilots with similar or better qualifications and experience.

Personally, I think the parachute is a great advancement and I myself would love one on my aircraft. In fact I would love a Cirrus but my budget cannot stretch that far. But I do feel from listening and seeing that it can make many who have them feel they are indestructible. I have witnessed cases where it has tipped the balance of whether to fly or not.

I was always taught that with aviation, if there is any doubt then do not fly. Having a chute, for some people, does seem to remove that element of doubt.

[Mariner9]

But so what if its true that Pilots change their go/no go decisions based on a parachute fitted to their aircraft?

Surely the safety fit and equipment level of the aircraft is a valid (and vital) part of the planning process?

You could make the same accusations about (for instance) a FIKI kit, or even simpler, an AI & TC.

Saying parachutes make pilots push the limits is missing the point. The limits should be set by the equipment fit of the aircraft, and (of course) the skill/currency of the pilot.

[Pace]

Mariner exactly ! But it is the pilot flying within his and the aircrafts limits which is important! Natural caution in an in chuted aircraft and the pilot knows he could be dead ! In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!

Pace

[Mariner9]

In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!

But I still fail to see why that's apparently seen by some contributors to this thread as a bad thing in general, or in any way connected to the BRS deployment that is the subject of this thread.

I'd happily have flown in a suitable a/c in the reported weather conditions, BRS fitted or not. I suspect (but don't of course know) the pilot concerned would do the same. Thankfully, when he got into some (as yet unknown) difficulty, he had a BRS to save the day.

[Steevo25]

I agree Mariner that there are many items in an aircraft that could change your decision of whether to fly or not. But these are usually planned. If you are flying IMC then you know you are going to use an AI.

But a chute is something you would never 'plan' to use. It should be treated the same as a fire extinguisher and only ever used in an emergency.

You wouldn't file a flight plan that said I take off from X but there may be a chance that I cannot land at Y so I am going to pull the chute so I can get in a field.

For all intense and purposes your planning and perception should all be done whilst you pretend that your aircraft does not have a chute. The chute is a last resort when if all your good planning goes wrong for a an unforeseen reason and there is no other alternative. Even then, for the safety of people on the ground, if other methods are safely possible then they should be tried first.

[Mariner9]

You wouldn't file a flight plan that said I take off from X but there may be a chance that I cannot land at Y so I am going to pull the chute so I can get in a field.

No I wouldn't. Nor would you, or anyone sane enough to hold a pilots licence. But for some reason Cirrus pilots seem to get tarred with this brush.

M9 (Not a Cirrus pilot)

[englishal]

Mariner exactly ! But it is the pilot flying within his and the aircrafts limits which is important! Natural caution in an in chuted aircraft and the pilot knows he could be dead ! In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!
You could argue the same about a Twin, or one with dual alternators, or dual vacuum system, or backup AI's etc.....I would never plan on a flight using a bit of emergency kit as part of the pre-flight planning i.e. I would never plan to fly over mountains, EXPECTING to have an emergency. But there would be no reason NOT to plan a flight across the mountains, at night, if you expected the weather to be ok and your equipment to remain operational. It would only be reckless if you had reason to expect your aircraft to fail.

However with experience one becomes more of a chicken. My buddy won't even fly across the channel in a SEP these days as he is used to twin turbojets . That is not to say that flying across the channel is stupid, or reckless, it just means that his personal limits are higher than mine. I'd mitigate the risk by carrying an EPIRB, ELT and a life raft and life jackets.

[Steevo25]

I personally am not referring to Cirrus pilots in general. My comments are not also referring to the general population either.

But with any safety device, it does add an element of confidence knowing that there is a way out if things go horribly wrong. I guess it seems to be aimed at Cirrus pilots as they are one of the few that have the chute system by default so it stands out. Also, the Cirrus aircraft is certified well above most over aircraft that have BRS systems fitted so those aircrafts are not certified to fly in some of the conditions that Cirrus would be allowed to. If there were more aircrafts that had a parachute fitted as standard then I think the focus would be taken away from Cirrus pilots in general.

I find it very difficult to comment on this one incident as the facts to what actually happened are very much unknown. Until that time it could have been a very genuine and unavoidable reason why the chute was deployed. Once the facts are out, it could go one of 2 ways. If it was something like a rough running engine and the pilot pulled the chute out of panic then I am sure the comments will not go in his favour. If it turns out that something physically went wrong with the aircraft that was unrecoverable through no fault of his own then the comments regarding chutes are going to be very much in the favour of the pilot.

It could have been a very different story. The aircraft came down in a populated area that could have caused injury or death to many people on the ground (a school not too far away). If the incident was that bad that the pilot had no other option but to take that risk then there isn't really much to say. But if it turns out that the incident was actually quite minor and pulling the chute was just a very easy way out then I am sure people will have a lot to say.

[cockney steve]

It has been stated that safety- equipment encourages risk-taking....initially, that may well be true.

having grown up in the pre-seat-belt era, Ican state that there was, indeed an acute conciousness of it.
Currently I'm driving a turbocharged 2-litre Volvo with some sort of traction control, ABS, airbags all over the place etc.
I do not think of these things when I go anywhere!
if conditions are such, and I'm in the mood, I may use more of the considerable performance and handling envelope than normal....but I never consider,"OOH! if I overcook it, there are all these gismos that "might" work and save my stupid neck"

Because of the nature of Aviation and the licencing requirements, it seems to attract people from the higher levels of the gene-pool.
Unfortunately, almost any knuckle-dragger can get a vehicle-driving licence-and some just omit that formality!- That, I'd suggest, has more to do with the risk-assesssment or lack thereof.

If I were considering a similar aircraft to a Cirrus (a taildragger-fan actually) Then, certainly the BRS would have a huge influence on my buying-decision. As regards it's eventual utilisation, I'd hope never to try it......Increased insurance or refusal and severe damage to my Airframe would be uppermost in my mind....save the aircraft and it'll save me!-or am I being simplistic?

Whether it attracts the "more money than sense" brigade, I don't know.

If a "bump" is INEVITABLE then safety-systems give a better chance of a happy outcome....by that time, you've already run out of skill and ideas so, on balance, a BRS is a huge plus.

[mad_jock]

or am I being simplistic?


Your more being personal to yourself.

Its this age old thing of if your an arty type or a Science engineery type.

As much as people would like to think otherwise our grey matter is wired differently. What seems glaringly obvious to some is white mans magic to others. If we were all the same we would only need half the regulation that we have today. And it doesn't matter how you regulate there is a group of people who will find a work around just because they can.

It all comes down to if your risk assessment is driven by science or by feeling.

The only time you will get the true safety advantage of the chute showing through is when all the pilots plan and operate as if it isn't in the back.

Personally I am quite interested in the results of everyone in Europe having to have the yearly IR test and if this produces a noticeable effect in lose of control incidents EU v US.

[007helicopter]

Frankly with statistics you can use them to promote whatever you want but I still feel a lot more thought needs to go into training over the chute and its use.
You and others here write as if we are two camps the for the chute and the against the chute. I am totally for the chute but not blindly used

Pace

I read recently that we should train to avoid the use of the chute, that makes perfect sense and I think that agree's with what you and many others are saying.

Also we should train when to use it if things do go wrong for what ever reason and be prepared to use it, it is certainly part of my briefing before every departure.

My understanding is quite a lot of Cirrus Pilot's (very vague I know) are not properly trained on when to use the chute, in fact for the first couple of years of ownership I would go as far as saying that I had not seriously thought about the what, why and when scenario's. I like to think now after quite a few hours in the Sim I am crystal clear on my own SOP for CAPS activation and hope in the heat of the moment make that decision in time if it ever occur's.

Mainly thanks to COPA it is now very firmly in my mind as one of the tools we have.

In terms of blindly using it as a comfort blanket and alternative to training I guess this must apply to a small number of pilots but not an attitude I have ever come across.

[007helicopter]

The only time you will get the true safety advantage of the chute showing through is when all the pilots plan and operate as if it isn't in the back.

MJ many a Cirrus Pilot has persihed with a perfectly good chute still intact and not used.

Not sure if they felt they could deal with the situation, forgot it was there, had the Pin in and could not remove it in time or simply unaware of it as a viable option.

And why should we plan to operate as if it is not there, in Pace's example that he would fly at night because it has a chute, compared to not with out a chute in a SEP, what is wrong with that?

[Pace]

007

i am sure if a wrote a list of when and when I would not use the chute it would probably not be miles away from your own.
Not over a built up area if I could glide clear to a better area and then pull it or force land.
Imminent incapacitation at any time.
Engine failure? Not over open fields or strong wind days but yes over inhospitable terrain dense forestation etc.
Structural failure yes anywhere.
Loss of control and unable to recover? Yes but maybe get some proper training on how to fly!
At night YES
Over fog banks YES
Over water smooth maybe rough and windy probably.
Important as you say is to have a plan and be clear in your own head

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

US Car fatality statisitcs expressed as fatalities per 1,000,000 miles

1960 = 5.0

2010 = 1.1

What changed in those 50 years ? Did the drivers get 5 times better or did new technology save lives ?

[mm_flynn]

Personally I am quite interested in the results of everyone in Europe having to have the yearly IR test and if this produces a noticeable effect in lose of control incidents EU v US.

Why would you expect to see any changes in loss of control accidents? Loss of control by rated pilots in the US or Europe is very rare (and normally associated in the US with severe convective activity or icing). The main issue is failure to follow the approach or departure procedure.

My understanding is the private IFR accident rate is similar US vs Europe despite the much more extensive use of night flying in the US. US corporate aviation is substantially safer than European AOC charter, and there is no known statistical safety gap between Nreg European IFR operations and EASA IFR operations (not withstanding the possible issues raised by this specific incident)

[007helicopter]

Engine failure? Not over open fields or strong wind days

Pace our lists as would many others be virtually identical, other than the old chestnut..

You would prefer to land in what appears a doable open field.

I would prefer the chute as a safer option for all off airport landing's. (other than the strong 30 knot + wind factor when a decision will be made based on terrain)

As per my previously done to death reasons of not knowing surface, wires, stumps, ditches, water logged etc. I think it is fine to have a personal preference based on perception of risk for each. The Cirrus small wheels and Cart Wheeling on a rough or boggy surface are a real factor.

Anyway engine failure is pretty rare and most fatalities are loss of control or Pilot error.

There are a surprising amount of Cirrus fatalities due to botched landings, botched go around's, and base to final turn resulting in a stall. None of which the CAPS helps in any way and all Pilot Error, often down to poor or inadequate training (from what I understand)

Regarding N936CT the incident plane, just curious does any one know where it was based?

Or How the Pilot is doing post incident or any feed back?

I imagine he is bruised physically and mentally, must never the less be quite a traumatic experience despite walking away.

[sdbeach]

Seems that the discussion became quite expansive in the past few hours. Good to see. Let me go back to something that merits discussion.
you have failed to discuss that concern or the effects of winds on descending aircraft under a chute.

You presume in the case of an engine failure that the aircraft will descend vertically at 25 mph ( I use mph to compare car speeds) you presume a still Day !

Take a windy day say 40 mph winds does your advice hold true to pull the chute in the event of engine failure?

You will now descend at 25 mph but travel horizontally at speed slamming into hard objects at speeds which in a car could kill you and under no control from you the pilot. You would experience not just a descent impact but a forward impact too.Has happened. Luna, NM, was a parachute pull with winds aloft over 30 knots. Surface winds were not measurable in that uninhabited area, but presumed to be quite high. We have recorded data from that pull. The plane descended at 1700 fpm (17 knots or 20 mph) as expected. The plane moved backwards (tail first) with the prevailing winds and struck trees and then flipped over. The pilot wisely placed his hand on the cockpit headliner and released his seat belt then walked out of the wreckage uninjured.

Cirrus considered occupant safety in their cockpit design, which helps avoid injury in the event of a ground impact, both under canopy vertically and crash landing horizontally. The side yoke removes the potential for impaling injury (vs center yoke or center stick). The recessed instrument panel is padded and free of protrusions. All seats conform to the 26G test requirement. The four-point shoulder harnesses keep the occupant upright and restrained. The front seats contain 3-inch honeycomb energy absorption material for vertical forces, and the rear seats have an 8-inch compression zone under the floor.
I know which option I would take on a windy day with half decent landing sites.

With a conventional forced landing you would use those winds to your advantage for low ground speed landings into wind and have control over not hitting hard stuff on the ground ! So on windy days do you still promote the idea of pulling the chute ?Possibly.

However, consider the advice to pilots contemplating these decisions under stress of an emergency event from Dick McGlaughlin, who lost oil pressure while flying near the Bahamas and pulled the parachute handle and survived:

"Don't be sitting in your living room thinking well I've figured it out and I'm going to get it down, I've calculated the wind vectors -- YOU ARE NOT! You are going to be lucky to survive, and you are going to have to remember that you have that parachute!"

I did two things right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64sa4tzdoi4)

Full hour-long version of Dick's talk COPA M10 Dick McGlaughlin keynote: Haiti, a Crash Course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiVi84ZjLbE).


Must admit I was chatting about this with the FO this morning. And he has just sent me this.

Cirrus Chute Deployment Fails Over Texas, Pilot Still Makes Safe Landing | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053)

Bit of a bastard but at least he got down safe. Bet he won't go near a thundercell again. To add I have never had a problem with steam instruments near cells. I have had EFIS give me black screens and standby instruments 4 times. I have 4 times as many hours on steam as I do on EFIS.
Interesting that the NTSB has opened an investigation (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130520X84445&key=1) into this incident and invited the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association to send a party representative, me, along with the usual manufacturer investigators, airframe, rocket, parachute, etc. The NTSB Investigator in Charge authorized the following statement after the initial extensive examination that "No conclusive root cause has been identified." The investigation continues.

Cheers
Rick

[Big Pistons Forever]

I must say I find it rather discouraging to read most of the posts on this forum.

The rigidity of the thinking and the lack of introspection and willingness to consider new concepts is very evident in the majority of the posters, not to mention a distinct wiff of "European pilots are so much better than those mere colonials" hubris......

[sdbeach]

It could have been a very different story. The aircraft came down in a populated area that could have caused injury or death to many people on the ground (a school not too far away).But this aircraft did come down in a populated area. It did not cause injury or death. People were quoted as saying they were 10 feet away on scaffolding. Other people were in their houses and heard the plane descend.

Why? The physics of a descent under canopy differs greatly than a forced off-airport landing.

The descent under canopy is 20 mph (or 17 knots or 1700 fpm). This is much slower than stall speed of 60 knots in a Cirrus and very much slower than a spin at 100 knots and dastardly slower than a spiral dive at Vne of 200 knots. Slower is better.

The sound of the rocket and parachute deployment was heard by people on the ground. At least two videos were taken by onlookers. They had time to recognize the location and take videos. People close by stated that they turned and looked at the plane coming straight down and missing them. BTW, at 1700 fpm descent, it takes 35 seconds to descent 1000 feet.

A vertical impact involves a much smaller footprint. It could be as small as the 40-foot diameter of the wings. A forced off-airport landing will depend upon what is struck during roll-out. Recently, a King Air impacted three houses and set them all on fire.

Finally, there was no post-impact fire. Despite fracturing the wing fuel-tanks in this accident and leaking about 100 litres of fuel, no fire (although 3 favorite koi fish died from poisoning). In fact, of all of the 34 survivable Cirrus parachute deployments, there has not been a post-impact fire.


Cheers
Rick

[Pace]

Rick

I understand what you are trying to say but it's not totally accurate!
Your vertical descent will only happen on a still air day!
I saw a cirrus deployment on film at altitude! Admittedly the winds at altitude must have been strong but the aircraft was travelling horizontally at what must have been twice or more if the vertical speed!
We all know the damage that can happen in a 30 mph crash in a car so on reasonably strong wind days not only is there vertical speed but forward speed to smash into building or whatever solid that is there!
It was pure luck that the aircraft in this situation came down where it did and not onto people ?
The police made that statement ! A six year old child will look up and get out if the way? I think not!
You still have not answered my question regarding engine failure on windy days ? You take to the chute I would rather take an into wind forced landing where I have control of where my aircraft is going rather than being a passenger to where I am taken to and on top of whoever is in my way !
Sorry we have a responsibility to others rather than just saving our own bacon and I think you are misleading yourself!
If you have no choice in an unflyable aircraft you have no choice so pray you don't take others out !
But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot

Pace

[m.Berger]

The police said it was pure luck to the reporter. Oh, well, that's Gospel truth then. I'd pull the 'chute. Responsibilities to my nearest and dearest trump the donkey sanctuary/ great crested newt or imaginary six year old child. You might be the greatest pilot the world will ever know but to turn down the safety gear makes me doubt that.

[sdbeach]

I understand what you are trying to say but it's not totally accurate!
Your vertical descent will only happen on a still air day!Huh? Under canopy, the vertical velocity will be the same on a still day or a windy day.

Now, I agree, that on a windy day, the wind imparts a horizontal velocity. Of course, your straw horse example with surface winds of 30-40 knots presumes that flight under those conditions is warranted! I'd be very thoughtful about departing with those conditions -- winds aloft at high speeds, okay, but surface winds at gale force would not be fun.

Still, the impact velocity horizontally will be somewhat reduced than the surface wind speed due to drag of the plane under canopy. I'm not a skydiver or a cargo chute specialist, so I don't know how much. It is a great thought experiment. Just something that I will enjoy thinking about and then ignore in an emergency -- those speeds are much less, by half, of the flying airspeed at stall or worse if in a spin or spiral dive. I like my chances with the survivable cockpit features and the physics of the parachute canopy.
I saw a cirrus deployment on film at altitude! Admittedly the winds at altitude must have been strong but the aircraft was travelling horizontally at what must have been twice or more if the vertical speed!Details? I love tracking videos of Cirrus deployments, so perhaps you can back up your recollection with the actual video for all of us to compare.
You still have not answered my question regarding engine failure on windy days ? You take to the chute I would rather take an into wind forced landing where I have control of where my aircraft is going rather than being a passenger to where I am taken to and on top of whoever is in my way !If you have control, then use it -- until you reach a hard deck altitude when deploying CAPS ensures a low-energy impact. I'll land driven by the wind and take my chances safely secure in my four-point shoulder harness braced for impact. You will be consumed with flying and looking out for boulders, ditches, fences, buildings, all sorts of things that could ruin your day.
But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot Ah, the shame gambit. Instead of thoughtful examination of the potential outcome, you ride in with shrieks of catastrophe.

Were you aware that three Cirrus parachute pulls were over densely populated areas?

Gaithersburg, MD -- landed in a residential street after bouncing off trees and a parked truck
Danbury, CT -- at night, landed suspended on telephone wires
Cheltenham, UK -- landed in a garden


Cheers
Rick

[007helicopter]

Pace I will let Rick answer in full as directed to him but on the point of hitting people on the ground

a) Any sane pilot will if still capable try and glide or fly to as clear an area as possible to save his own skin if nothing else. Selfish bastard or not he will be trying to preserve his own life.

b) Most of the 30+ plus pulls to date are over sparsely populated areas.

c) The noise of the Rocket gets the attention of the vast majority of the population.

d) Even looking down on populated areas I think the statistical chance of hitting a person is remote, maybe a building or vehicle is a higher chance but it has not happened in the last decade.

e) Eventually it must happen but insignificant in terms of the big picture compared to pedestrians getting killed by road vehicles, or swimmers killed by speed boats etc, it happens inevitably.

f) What is the alternative, an aircraft travelling at 60-70 knots or considerably more rocketing into buildings doing significantly more damage.

So as an argument I see it as insignificant to the main debate on the pro's and cons of the chute.

[Fuji Abound]

If you have no choice in an unflyable aircraft you have no choice so pray you don't take others out !
But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot

Pace

Come on this is all getting a bit desperate.

If a pilot looses control in IMC for whatever reason he is going to make a large hole somewhere and it is purely down to luck where. At least under chute he is likely to cause a great deal less damage.

The chute is pulled for a reason; 9 times out of ten (and possibly more) the pilot would have been in the same situation in any aircraft.

[Bristol1965]

Rick,

Thanks for the information you have been posting. Interesting details and they do make sense.

Minor point if I may ask, I was under impression that the descend speed for SR20 and SR22 upto and including G3 is about 6 meter a seconds or about 14 miles. Of course this is at full weight, so if the aircraft is lightly loaded, it will descend at lower rate. Still this is a minor point.

Anti Chute Pilots

Regarding aircraft landing here or there, I don't think it is fair to speculate. People are raising "What Ifs..." Well in practice one may decide to land clear of ground and then crash it in a school or a house, I think an aircraft in glide with the speed of 90 knots will cause a lot more damage than when it is descending at the speed of 10 knots. I know those who need to go against the chute will always have a scenario at hand.

General

I was taught, unless you can guarantee a "safe landing" in case of a major failure (engine, prop, fuselage...), then pull the chute, by all means assess the situation, but you are up against time. Can I also add, the Cirrus has a Flight Operation Manual. It is the manufacturer's recommendation and "Now a requirement" to fly the Cirrus aircraft in accordance with the flight operation manual. Any cirrus pilots that require clarification on the Flight operation manual, then may I suggest them to contact a Cirrus Training Centre in UK, details of which are published on the Cirrus-US Website.

In the case of the last incident, the pilot did the right thing by pulling the chute, had he waited and descended below cloud (the cloud base at Gloucestershire airport was about 600 feet overcast and lower above Cheltenham) and then pulled the chute, the result of a plummeted aircraft to the ground would have been different (As per manufacturer, the Chute requires at least 400 feet to open).

Happy flying and be Safe.

[abgd]

Walk around any city centre and look at the sheer mass of street furniture that has been damaged by motor vehicles. Bent lamp posts, dented crash barriers, shattered bollards and so on. Over the course of my life I must have chanced upon perhaps half a dozen buildings with cars sticking out of them.

On another thread on the forum, somebody pointed out that there are 1900 road deaths a year in the uk. When you look into them in more detail, there are about 1300 deaths of motor vehicle occupants/drivers and 600 deaths of pedestrians/cyclists.

Obviously it's irresponsible to put anybody at risk if you can help it, but even in the context of CAPS deployments over populated areas, as aviators we are vastly more likely to kill ourselves and our passengers than any non-participants.

[sdbeach]

Rick,

Thanks for the information you have been posting. Interesting details and they do make sense.Good to know.
Minor point if I may ask, I was under impression that the descend speed for SR20 and SR22 upto and including G3 is about 6 meter a seconds or about 14 miles. Of course this is at full weight, so if the aircraft is lightly loaded, it will descend at lower rate. Still this is a minor point. Have never heard of a rate in meter/second, so I dunno.

What I do know is that recorded data of a moderately loaded SR22 shows a descent of 1700 fpm or 17 knots or 20 mph. That's 8.636 m/s, for what that's worth.

Interesting engineering tidbit: the parachute opens faster when deployed at higher airspeeds and slower when going slower. So the initial deceleration can be quite high. The Horton, UK parachute pull was at 187 KIAS and the recorded data showed two seconds of negative 4 G deceleration. Cinch those seatbelts tight and low across your hips! ;)

Cheers
Rick

[Pace]

I was taught, unless you can guarantee a "safe landing" in case of a major failure (engine, prop, fuselage...), then pull the chute, by all means assess the situation, but you are up against time. Can I also add, the Cirrus has a Flight Operation Manual. It is the manufacturer's recommendation and "Now a requirement" to fly the Cirrus aircraft in accordance with the flight operation manual. Any cirrus pilots that require clarification on the Flight operation manual, then may I suggest them to contact a Cirrus Training Centre in UK, details of which are published on the Cirrus-US Website

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute? Rick I am sure you can publish that here as I do not have up to date access to the latest Cirrus instructions on the use of the chute.
Last I saw was on engine failure which was conventional glide clear and only in the event of no suitable forced landing site CONSIDER the chute.
I presume a heck of a lot has changed since then so lets see the official chute instructions from Cirrus.

Oh well the pull for any reason anywhere means minimal PPL training for Cirrus pilots/ No PFL as you do not need them. No Spin training as you do not need it! stall recovery? Why bother you have the chute. Recovery from unusual attitudes? again why bother pull the chute! The list goes on ! Instrument flying skills? Just stick the autopilot on etc etc etc! People on the ground to hell with them as long as I am ok? Weather why bother pull the chute! Why even bother with the PPL a driving licence will do!
Not the way I wa taught

Pace

[sdbeach]

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute?
CAPS™ WORKS. TRAINING MAKES IT WORK FOR YOU. (http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/caps/)


Oh well the pull for any reason anywhere means minimal PPL training for Cirrus pilots/ No PFL as you do not need them. No Spin training as you do not need it! stall recovery? Why bother you have the chute. Recovery from unusual attitudes? again why bother pull the chute! The list goes on ! Instrument flying skills? Just stick the autopilot on etc etc etc! People on the ground to hell with them as long as I am ok? Weather why bother pull the chute! Why even bother with the PPL a driving licence will do!
Not the way I wa taughtActually, pretty close to the design principle -- make the technology smart enough to get out of the way!

In reality, Cirrus has succeeded in the marketplace by expanding the pool of potential pilots. They do not focus on trying to sell to you, Pace. There are too few of you to sustain general aviation, so to keep GA alive, we need to attract other people with a need for personal air transportation.

Frankly, all this skepticism of safety innovations -- because it was not the way you were taught -- fails in two ways. First, it turns off people. Second, it doesn't address the current and emerging generation of pilots.

Take a look at the integrated syllabus for private and instrument training (http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/575391.aspx).
http://www.asa2fly.com/images/Prod/Ptr/Txb/Pms/PM-AF-S_Std.jpg (http://www.asa2fly.com/The-Pilots-Manual-Access-to-Flight-Syllabus--P1247_product1.aspx)
This syllabus takes ab initio student pilots through a realistic set of flight scenarios such that they come out with both an instrument rating and a private pilot rating at the same time. Definitely not the way you were taught. But it works, according to several Cirrus Flight Training Centers.

Cheers
Rick

[Gertrude the Wombat]

What changed in those 50 years ? Did the drivers get 5 times better or did new technology save lives ?
One factor (in the UK at least) was social change - driving whilst drunk changed from being the bog standard way to get home from the pub to being socially unacceptable.

[execExpress]

Pace - it seems to me to be your honourable quest to protect the innocent, in particular the 'eventually inevitable' unsupervised occupant of a parambulator, from a BRS pull.

Invoking concepts such as cowardice, shame and "excuse for a pilot" (not a new low for PPRuNE I suppose) might not be such an effective way for the skeptics to achieve that.

I sincerely hope we will not in future be debating how a language and climate of hostility toward anything but "wing gone" use of BRS may have negatively influenced a pilot of a BRS equipped aircraft - say on a perfectly legal arrival/departure over a populated area, flown in the same (reasonable) circumstances as non BRS a/c -who did not to pull when it all went pear-shaped for some reason, ending with an uncontrolled high velocity arrival, pall of rising thick black smoke and the much greater prospect of third parties being involved.

The reason why it went pear shaped will be investigated and debated, pull or no pull, but the consequences for many, hopefully all, involved would likely be significantly different in the pull case given the mass and slipperiness of an SR22.

It may be that we have moved or are moving from an initial period (post-introduction) where Rick could argue (115 fatalities) that BRS was not used enough when it should have been (likewise ejector seats post introduction) through lack of prior thought/drilling on BRS use, to a period where there might be some more drilling or awareness that leads to more pulls than might have been 'strictly' necessary according to some expectations. However even if true that at least would suggest that real world practice is/has swung away from the fatal end (under use) and we can go on learning about the subtleties and complexities which arise from the existence of such technology.

As hard as it was for Cirrus to get BRS certified (many said would never happen) the initial field experience was IMHO was harder "you can fit BRS but too many pilots are not using it and dying when things go wrong -Why o why is that?". It is not that they flew a dumb flight because they thought they had a BRS to bail them out. They never expected to be in an accident, had not considered BRS scenarios and were not primed to pull at all or in time when - somehow - it was needed.


The BRS debates do help to, rightly, also bring a focus on real world piloting skills and training, which even the airline industry has learned through AAF447 and Buffalo remains fundamental however much it has invested in automating flying skills (baby) and human error (bathwater) out of the airliner.

Skills and training can always be improved, but sadly not to the level of themselves totally obviating fatal accidents. In a world likely to become less and less tolerant of risk the ability of technology such as BRS to mitigate the dire consequences of failure(s) across the spectrum of human processess of training, skills, judgement, SA, physiology, psychology, engineering, meteorology, ..., becomes more precious over time. I know what 'black smoke' images I am relieved were not captured on mobile phones last week, whatever the prior circumstances. When those circumstances are understood maybe true aviation safety culture learning can be practiced and applied to the ultimate benefit of us all.

P.S. also known to fly Cessna, Piper and gliders. I suppose each of those gets me tarred with some brush or other too. More human-ness I guess. Human-ness happens, shall we try to improve on it? :-)

[m.Berger]

Much better that he'd died. I suppose then Pace could have told us all that he was an ace pilot and right not to deploy his 'chute.
Flyable aircraft but pilot out of depth or even simply frightened: PULL THE CHUTE. Miracle escapes are better for GA than fatal accidents. As for "not what I was taught," Then you are not receptive to continuous improvement, the latest training wisdom and maintaining the currency of your skills. Truly an apology for a pilot whose attitude should be IMHO one of "learning all the time."

[Pace]

Ok apologies for writing excuse for a pilot ! Firstly I am totally for the Cirrus and its chute but certain areas of iits use bother me and the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills ! Sorry for offending anyone

Pace

[Mariner9]

Well said Pace. Some of the insults hurled about on this thread concerning a fellow pilot are outrageous IMHO, especially given that we know so little regarding the circumstances of the subject BRS deployment

I hope none of the Cirrus pilots reading this are ever dissuaded from a BRS deployment fearing subsequent trial by Proon.

[Jonzarno]

the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills !

Pace


This is a key principle behind the CAPS system and I agree entirely. :D

Some of those posting here have made it look as though (to caricature a bit :p) Cirrus pilots are told to pull the parachute as soon as a warning light comes on and that, therefore, Cirrus pilots don't bother to learn basic skills.

That is not the case. This comment was recently made on the COPA forum discussing this incident:

"Train to use CAPS if necessary, but train even more to avoid having to use it in the first place. "

That is a much better reflection of the real attitude.

Just like the pilots of any other make of aircraft, there are bad Cirrus pilots and basically competent Cirrus pilots who make mistakes that the sky gods posting here would never make.

Only today, I was watching an Air Safety Institute video about a Piper pilot who got caught by a storm in America after misunderstanding the limitations of the Nexrad weather display and died together with his family. That doesn't make all Piper pilots reckless fools.

(BTW, it's worth a watch: http://aopamailer.aopa2.org/trk/clickp?ref=zvrf6lhhh_0-e2x3592x041280&recid=6542999&hkey=3177191105&priority=F1306ESW04&WT.mc_id=F1306ESW04

Just like the pilots of other aircraft, I also believe that the majority of Cirrus drivers are serious about flying standards, training and safety. This is borne out by the attendances at CPPPs and the activity of both COPA and Cirrus Aircraft themselves in promoting this at a level as good as, perhaps even better than, any in the industry.

The key difference is that we have the option of the chute and are taught to make it part of our emergencies handling and to be sure to use it early enough to ensure it does it's job and in circumstances where not doing so would put us at greater risk of dying than using it.

If that makes me a lousy pilot: Guilty as Charged

[stevelup]

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute? Rick I am sure you can publish that here as I do not have up to date access to the latest Cirrus instructions on the use of the chute.
Last I saw was on engine failure which was conventional glide clear and only in the event of no suitable forced landing site CONSIDER the chute.
I presume a heck of a lot has changed since then so lets see the official chute instructions from Cirrus.

The POH states:-

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide speed. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. If altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and landing considerations.

Which seems pretty reasonable?

And:-

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.

Which is hardly encouraging reckless abandon when pulling the handle!

[Jonzarno]

I hope none of the Cirrus pilots reading this are ever dissuaded from a BRS deployment fearing subsequent trial by PPRuNe.

No: I think I will regard it as a Badge of Honour!

Better to stand in the pillory than dangle from the gallows, eh? :E

[Aphrican]

Ok apologies for writing excuse for a pilot ! Firstly I am totally for the Cirrus and its chute but certain areas of iits use bother me and the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills ! Sorry for offending anyone

Pace



To be fair, I think that this is something that Cirrus and COPA are trying to do.

My VFR Cirrus Transition Training (with a factory syllabus and standardised instruction) took me 11.3 flight hours, at least the same in "ground hours" and 34 landings and was much harder and more rigorous than my FAA PPL oral and checkride. I was a materially better pilot after the course than before it but still obviously a new pilot.

My left forearm hurt at the end of each day. There was some "buttonology" but the emphasis was certainly on hand flying with particular emphasis on very precise speed and energy management.

I will take the annual currency training structured by Cirrus as well.

The COPA sponsored CPPP ground courses are also very good (I haven't done the flying part of a CPPP yet). I am working on my FAA IR at the moment. The two weather courses that I took at a CPPP were much more in depth than the weather material required for the FAA IR written. The fact that one can get every weather question wrong on the FAA IR written scares me.

Risk homeostasis is a factor that ought to be more explicitly addressed in Cirrus / COPA training without diluting the message that people should pull when they need to but should try minimise the need.

The factory offers a decentralised, standardised, appropriately scaled approximation of a type rating and currency training. COPA offers advanced courses with respect to weather, avionics, powerplants, decision making etc.

It is up to pilots to take advantage of all of the training opportunities available.

[Pace]

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.

The above from Cirrus makes sobering reading and not quite the pull the CAPS at the first sign of a warning light as some seem to suggest.
I noted a referral to strong winds soemthing I have tried to discuss which Rick had poo pood as literally insignificant in a descending Cirrus under a chute.
My message throughout this has been to highlight what I could see as problem areas over built up cities, strong winds, neglecting basic handling skills especially PFLs and being lured into situations you cannot cope with through confidence in the CAPS as a get out of jail for free.
I went over the top with frustration at Ricks everything in the garden is rosy attitude to CAPS and again apologize for referring to excuse for a pilot. I was out of order!

Pace

[Jonzarno]

Ricks everything in the garden is rosy attitude to CAPS

That's unfair: practically every statement he has made has had clearly stated factual support.

[Pace]

In your opinion! But that's fine it's a free world accept what you want to believe !
Rick is entitled to his opinion as you are and as I am

Pace

[Jonzarno]

No, it's not just my opinion. Just read what he has written: how many of his posts do not contain clear references to support what he says?

[mad_jock]

how many of his posts do not contain clear references to support what he says?

Its not clear because the statistics have been manipulated to prove a point.

I am quite sure if so inclined that they could prove that going to church every sunday could have the same safety benefits, mainly because that's one less flying day in the week.

[belowradar]

Rick has supported his statements with clear factual information

Pace has not

Pace has posted emotive opinionated responses which at times have been unbelievable Such as his "yellow bastard" post which was repeated more than once

Now that you have had a good read and can see that there is indeed a full modern training syllabus and detailed information on CAPs deployment we can see that you overreacted through ignorance and emotion rather than cool judgement of the facts

Come on Pace I think you need to retract the "yellow bastard" sentiment and agree that you overreacted a little bit

[A and C]

Over thirty years in the business and I dont see much in the way of the type of people that flying attracts and it is usualy the high achiving go-getter types who are more inclined towards the IFR loss of control and CFIT accidents flying the higher performance kit.

As a pilot I am a bit too close to the action to make judgment on my fellow aviators but the fire crew at my local airfield run a book on who they think will be the next to kill themselfs, for some of you this may seem a little cruel but as the airfield has a work experience program running with the local schools and this book is used as a basis for who they will NOT let fly students who are on this program.

So I am inclined towards the opinion that their are some people who like or cant see the risks they are taking and are therefore going to take the high risk option for what ever reason no mater how much education the flying community trys to give them.

For the innocent bystander on the ground the balistic chute can be seen as protection from these risk takers as at least when the inevitable happens the aircraft arrives at a sedate pace with little energy and little risk of explosion rather than at very high speed with the almost inevitable risk of the fuel in the tanks exploding.

[mad_jock]

I would go with that A and C and they are the ones that won't go on any sort of training unless forced.

[abgd]

I am quite sure if so inclined that they could prove that going to church every sunday could have the same safety benefits, mainly because that's one less flying day in the week. Nah... I was discussing with one of the ambulance crew the other day, and we both agreed that the most dangerous things you can do (judging by patients through the door with truly nasty injuries) are horse riding, mountain biking and going to church.

The reason is that as people get older and frailer, they do less and less outside the house (no pleasure trips; no trips to see friends; no shopping - family or social services help out... but church tends to be the last one to go - hence on an icy or windy day you'll often get someone who slipped or was blown over and broke a hip). But statistically speaking...

[englishal]

Come on Pace I think you need to retract the "yellow bastard" sentiment and agree that you overreacted a little bit
To be fair to Pace, that wasn't Pace that said that...

[OldManRiver]

Over thirty years in the business and I dont see much in the way of the type of people that flying attracts and it is usualy the high achiving go-getter types who are more inclined towards the IFR loss of control and CFIT accidents flying the higher performance kit.
Also some time in the flying business, on and off (54 years since my first P2 flight, admittedly in a T21): isn't this what in my day we recognised as dangerous 'overconfidence' and went to great lengths (sometimes admittedly brutally) to eliminate? In other words: to bring them (under controlled conditions) to a point at which they had no option but to admit to themselves that they were not natural-born 'sky gods' but mere fallible mortals?

[mad_jock]

yep old man that's exactly what it is.

These days though its not PC to give them a kicking round the back of the hanger.

I can remember when doing my HGV license aged 17. Did a day with the army instructor came back and got my head kicked in. 3 days light dutys in the kitchen and passed on the 4th day after having a re-adjustment of my attitude towards driving. Which to be fair is still with me to this day. So that Cpl did me a favour no bones broken a couple of dead legs and everything sorted.

[baldwinm]

These days though its not PC to give them a kicking round the back of the hanger.

Fair enough -but some of us on here are doing this for a hobby you know :)

Having said that when I started gliding in my teens a good b***ocking seemed to be par for the course for any minor misdemeanour.

Your average middle aged businessman Cirrus owner might be a bit perturbed to see corporal punishment introduced as part of the Cirrus training programme though.

[mad_jock]

Having said that when I started gliding in my teens a good b***ocking seemed to be par for the course for any minor misdemeanour.


And I bet your a better pilot for it. with a lot of these high flying biz types though the fact you tell them not to do something means they will go and do exactly that to prove you wrong. Then get away with it a couple of times then have a new underpants moment or a run in with the feds.

Which of course is never their fault and they are being victimised or there was some natural phenomena which nobody else has heard of which caused the incident.

[Pace]

Beliw Radar

Sorry but please cut and paste where I have used "Bastard" ? Yellow maybe or cowardly and that I stand by in the context of someone with engine failure and altitude to glide clear who blindly pulls the chute with total disregard for those on the ground below but "bastard" show me where? Please and maybe you need to apologise ?

Pace

[thborchert]

Jeeze. How low does it go on PPrune? That's what you call "skygods" in the UK? People who reminisce about how being kicked through a hangar made them "real pilots"? It's pretty clear who in this thread offered facts, and who offered "opinion".

You probably know the old saying about opinions and certain body parts. If not, ask that instructor that used to kick you through the hangar :ugh:

[mad_jock]

And there hasn't been a single fact on this thread. Some inferred facts from some manipulated statistics and after that pure opinion on what should be true.

Some of us see it as a privilege to fly aircraft and others see it as a right to do so and not only that do what they want.

And that instructor first started out in the south African rifles as a 16 year old and had been teaching HGV driving for longer than I had been alive.

I am quite sure there are a few American hangers with blood on the back wall as well. More than likely a few which are freshly wet today.

[thborchert]

And there hasn't been a single fact on this thread.

That would definitely qualify as an opinion :E

[Crash one]

It used to be called "self dicipline". I you didn't have any it was beaten into you.
Today the beater would be jailed & the un-diciplined would be compensated & receive counselling.:mad:

Edit: in answer to cheap comment since removed.

[mad_jock]

Yep and its your opinion that its fact. When is been blatantly fiddled with to remove data which doesn't help the cause.

[belowradar]

Pace have a look at your rather emotive post of 6th June 21:58


Any pilot who above a city and looses the engine while being capable of gliding clear is a selfish Basta+d Yellow bellied and incompetent if he pulls the chute with total disregard for where he comes down.
One day it will be into a childrens play ground.

Looks like you missed out the letter r !

[sdbeach]

Yep and its your opinion that its fact. When is been blatantly fiddled with to remove data which doesn't help the cause.
Wow! Wake up to a bunch of posts that seem to convey apologies and an appreciation for the stereotypes here.

Then denial comes roaring back.

Thanks to several posters who get it. Safety emerges from a culture that values integrity, dedication, and authenticity. The COPA and Cirrus Aircraft communities work hard to ensure that pilots fly safely in a safe airplane. It's us, not the plane.

The forums on PPRuNe and AOPA distinguish themselves by community members who denigrate those efforts. Stereotypes abound. One-liners abound. Opinions abound. Misinformation abounds. Denial abounds.

After almost 400 posts, this thread finally addressed some underlying behaviors that perpetuate the problems. And then MJ turns around and insists on refuting the evidence. Sweeping generalizations. Flat-out denial. Only his word is good enough. Pretty tough to lower oneself to his standards.

Cheers
Rick

[Bristol1965]

Jozanro,

Sad video. Good of you to bring this up to the attention of everyone.

There are some more videos which you can get to from AOPA US.
Another with a sad outcome was A Seneca that got into difficulty and eventually crashed (IMC and fuel).

[mad_jock]

Get your stats sorted out and then there wouldn't be an argument.

And yes you are eventually admitting that the chute is only treating the symptoms. Which is what we have been saying from the word go.

And until you sort the disease out you will never realise the true safety benefits from having the chute.

And I am sure you have spent the past week furiously going round all the forums saying that the majority of the pilots of the world have it wrong and a very small subset of pilots have it right.

It reminds me very much of the wookie hole boys DIR in technical scuba diving. In then end there was a DIW t-shirts getting made up (doing it wrong) and all manner piss takes. In fact the constant banging of the boards and shouting down of anyone that disagreed with them actually moved more people away from what they were saying.

In actual fact they did have a few very good points to do with equipment and most of us did go half way with it. But alot of there message was lost.

Its blatantly obvious that you have cooked the numbers by removing the instructional flight data. Anyone with a tiny bit of intelligence which most will have to be able to afford a cirrus will be able to see that.

Its good to see you have some passion for the subject. But you claim to be a researcher. Stand back and try and prove your hypothesis wrong. You won't have to try very hard. Then look why its wrong and why your not having the effect you would like.

Because at the moment your message is lapped up by the people that have already committed to the aircraft but to the majority of others your just coming across as a club for rubbish pilots that couldn't find their bums with a mirror in a cloud without loosing control even with the autopilot in.

[Bristol1965]

Rick,

You have done a valuable job by posting those details. The Cirrus is a great aircraft and the caps when operating within its designed parameters works. It has proved itself and it will continue to do so in future.

As a rule, those who have an attacking/disrespectful attitude towards others are generally less capable. Their lack of ability is often noticeable at the time of a through check ride. So I won't worry about non-constructive comments.

I have met people whom are against GPS, Pilots who think real pilots are those who can only land a tail dragger, a PA28-140 pilot who think his generation are the best because they don't have toe brakes and.....!

So life goes on, keep up with the good work with Cirrus Aircraft.

As Cirrus say 'THE CHUTE WORKS'.

[sdbeach]

Get your stats sorted out and then there wouldn't be an argument. Frankly, I don't believe you.

I presented NTSB statistics for the GA overall accident rate and the GA Personal and Business accident rate. Came from the document you posted. The NTSB data is there to review. You never rebutted their information. Just criticized me.

Then I placed the Cirrus fatal accident rate in the context of both of those rates. Not the most favorable rate, both of them. Furthermore, I showed you both the very favorable 12-month Cirrus rate and the much less favorable 36-month rate. Not good enough for you. Arguments abound.
Its blatantly obvious that you have cooked the numbers by removing the instructional flight data. Me?

Misdirected angst. It was the NTSB that made national headlines in the US because they introduced their GA Safety Forum in June 2012 with the 20% growth in fatal accidents in Personal flying over the past decade. Sitting in the audience, I just woke up to the significance of those numbers.

Because at the moment your message is lapped up by the people that have already committed to the aircraft but to the majority of others your just coming across as a club for rubbish pilots that couldn't find their bums with a mirror in a cloud without loosing control even with the autopilot in.Well, that quote seems a suitable epitaph for PPRuNE.

Cheers
Rick

[thborchert]

MJ,

Aren't we going out in style. Maybe that "sorry excuse for a pilot" concept WAS fitting to PPrune after all.

Find a dictionary and read up on "majority".

[Saab Dastard]

I think that this thread has run its course.

Both "sides" have had more than enough time to make their points, and those following the thread have by now gleaned what knowledge and information they can from it.

We seem to be going around in circles now, with things in danger of degenerating into personal attacks.

I'm going to close this thread, so if anyone wants to introduce some genuinely new points, feel free to start a fresh Cirrus thread. Lord knows, we've had several, so another can't hurt too much. ;)

I reserve the right to add "Hamster Wheel" to any new Cirrus thread, BTW! :)

SD