Reports of a light aircraft down in Blue Mountains
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't these things glide. Gotta wonder, pulling the handle at the first sign of trouble. What ever happened to the good old forced landing.
My thoughts too, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you can purchase a Cirrus without this option. For that reason and the exorbitant cost of the mandatory 10 year service on this "safety" device, the Cirrus would be my very last choice in performance singles.
In the early days, I had my fun with the idea along with almost everyone else. As experience built, I got a lot quieter. We used to call 'em "Righteous Pulls" vs "Non-Righteous Pulls," and there were some where even I would have been glad to have the option. Nowadays, I kinda don't even think much about it.
But almost all of us pilots miss the major point of the chute. Wives, significant others, kids, and passengers. Whether the chute is worth it or not, for the non-flying public it makes perfect sense. You can talk 'till you're blue in the face, but these people are AFRAID to fly. They are SCARED on every trip, and some will not fly GA at all. I know half dozen couples where the wife takes the kids, drives to Grandma's house, while Dad flies in solitary splendor. Some may like it, but many do not, and it sometimes causes Dad to sell a beloved airplane - or not buy one the first place.
These people MAY tolerate an unneeded twin, but darn near every one of them will go for the airplane with the chute. For MANY, it will be the difference between having a Cirrus and not having an airplane at all. It's not logical, but it's undeniable.
The Klapmeiers were absolute geniuses to dream this concept up!
The early ones came only NA, until George Braly (TAT) developed the TAT TN and people started taking new airplanes directly to Ada for the conversion. Didn't take too long before Cirrus got the picture, and in cooperation with TAT, started putting the Turbo as a factory option. Then they switched to the factory TC engine, for a bit less money, a sweetheart deal with CMI to get the business. Also pulled a very dirty deal on TAT. Not sure what it did to the end sales price, but whatever it was, it was a bum decision, in my opinion, for technical reasons alone.
I got to fly one with George Braly, and liked it well enough. Performance is about the same as my TAT TNIO-550 Bonanza, a tribute to the "slickness" of the Cirrus, AND the little-known fact that a retracting gear doesn't necessarily give as much increased speed as you'd think. Bonanza carries a lot more weight and pax, of course, depending on the model.
Beautiful visibility, and a nice cockpit, though some find the seats a little uncomfortable. Price is not far off that of a new Bonanza.
Don't put it in the water with the chute, if you have a choice! The LG is part of the "crush" that makes for less impact on the bodies.
I'd still buy the Bo', but I wouldn't turn my nose up at the Cirrus.
Best...
John Deakin
Last edited by jdeakin; 10th May 2014 at 17:31. Reason: Signature
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny, how someone can first state "pulled at the first sign of trouble" and then add "no idea what happened". 'Nuff said, I guess.
>>Don't put it in the water with the chute, if you have a choice! The LG is part of the "crush" that makes for less impact on the bodies<<
Actually, the number of water landings under CAPS is now high enough to say this doesn't seem to be true. In the first ever water CAPS landing the pilot hurt his back (but not enough to keep him from almost swimming to shore AND go skiing six weeks later or so). However, it is now believed that might have been due to his trying to move away from an industrial facility he thought he was coming down on. He applied full power, which might have induced a turning or sideways motion (it won't move the parachute/plane ensemble much laterally, as is now clear). However, in all other water landings, there does not seem to have been an impact harder enough to matter. This is a good example: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...e-bahamas.aspx
>>Don't put it in the water with the chute, if you have a choice! The LG is part of the "crush" that makes for less impact on the bodies<<
Actually, the number of water landings under CAPS is now high enough to say this doesn't seem to be true. In the first ever water CAPS landing the pilot hurt his back (but not enough to keep him from almost swimming to shore AND go skiing six weeks later or so). However, it is now believed that might have been due to his trying to move away from an industrial facility he thought he was coming down on. He applied full power, which might have induced a turning or sideways motion (it won't move the parachute/plane ensemble much laterally, as is now clear). However, in all other water landings, there does not seem to have been an impact harder enough to matter. This is a good example: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...e-bahamas.aspx
Cirrus repaired after parachute.
I happened to notice this.
2006 Cirrus SR22 N80KW S/N 1879 | Sky Way Aircraft
Subsequently for sale - Price: $175,000.00
Video by passerby after landing.
NTSB Identification: ERA13LA012
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 06, 2012 in Birmingham, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/25/2013
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N80KW
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 06, 2012 in Birmingham, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/25/2013
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N80KW
2006 Cirrus SR22 N80KW S/N 1879 | Sky Way Aircraft
Subsequently for sale - Price: $175,000.00
2006 CIRRUS SR22 N80KW S/N 1879
Maintenance: Annual Inspection C/W 7/19/2013; Installed new CAOS line cutters; 6/2013, Installed new Parachute, Rocket motor, expires 6/2019;
Damage History 7/19/2013
Extra's : Factory Air condition; TKS Deicing; New CAPS Ballistic Parachute System 2013; Rosen Sun Visors; Wing Strobes; Amsafe airbag seat belts; Elect pitch Trim.
Maintenance: Annual Inspection C/W 7/19/2013; Installed new CAOS line cutters; 6/2013, Installed new Parachute, Rocket motor, expires 6/2019;
Damage History 7/19/2013
Extra's : Factory Air condition; TKS Deicing; New CAPS Ballistic Parachute System 2013; Rosen Sun Visors; Wing Strobes; Amsafe airbag seat belts; Elect pitch Trim.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silly question department.
Just a random question, begged out of sheer ignorance of the aircraft type or it's operational envelope. On the satellite map, there is a handy golf course not to far away. Allowing for a reasonable glide ratio (and enough height), could it be possible or practical to set off in that direction, standard forced landing technique and pop the chute 'overhead', hopefully landing mostly in one piece on the 13th tee? Not saying there was enough time or space to do this; no data. Just curious about 'technique' that's all.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimjim1, contrary to the post earlier in this thread, activation of the CAPS does not automatically result in a written-off aircraft. It is all subject to economics and damage obviously. Cirrus claim that the aircraft *can* be repaired and indeed as you see above it can, new caps, new lines glassed in etc. It all depends what else you broke during deployment.
The motor vehicle industry has statutory write-offs whereas the aviation industry doesn't.
Kharon - they are no different to any other aircraft really, circa 1530kg's MTOW, 4pob and over the fence at circa 75 knots subject to piloting, rough strip rating almost as good as a 172 but certainly not an Airvan.
The motor vehicle industry has statutory write-offs whereas the aviation industry doesn't.
Kharon - they are no different to any other aircraft really, circa 1530kg's MTOW, 4pob and over the fence at circa 75 knots subject to piloting, rough strip rating almost as good as a 172 but certainly not an Airvan.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NN, right you are, it certainly does look like a slow descent and I would argue quite less than even 1000fpm.
Am I mistaken or is this not the SECOND Cirrus demonstrator aircraft in Australia to meet its' maker via CAPS deployment? I'm thinking Hamilton Island engine failure landing under CAPS in water with Maltby at the controls.
Am I mistaken or is this not the SECOND Cirrus demonstrator aircraft in Australia to meet its' maker via CAPS deployment? I'm thinking Hamilton Island engine failure landing under CAPS in water with Maltby at the controls.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had an engine failure in something with a chute especially over the Blue Mountains, I would not hesitate to deploy it. It's tiger country out there, not very many options for a forced landing so I'm pretty sure they didn't have much choice.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting note in the additional options:
"CAPS Bigger Chute and Rocket."
That might explain why its' descent rate was seemingly very low.
I note it also says "Carbon Appearance." Certainly fooled me, thought they had a higher carbon content than just for show. I was suspect when the MTOW and payload figures hadn't changed.
"CAPS Bigger Chute and Rocket."
That might explain why its' descent rate was seemingly very low.
I note it also says "Carbon Appearance." Certainly fooled me, thought they had a higher carbon content than just for show. I was suspect when the MTOW and payload figures hadn't changed.
Maybe the "bigger chute" (& rocket) in the sales description had something to do with the seemingly low-ish RoD??
And they obviously pressed the "blue level button" to get such a nice level descent.....
Great result all round - bet the property owner was looking for a reason to upgrade that fence..
BR
And they obviously pressed the "blue level button" to get such a nice level descent.....
Great result all round - bet the property owner was looking for a reason to upgrade that fence..
BR
so whats the expected G force on your body from a drop from 13 ft?
Landing gear crush and other deformation might make it gentler than you expect.
Given that deploying the chute trashes the aircraft, the question is whether you would be better off just doing a forced landing.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Akro - I don't think there's anything to be questioned. 85 totally successful parachute landings without a fatality is a whole lot better record, than the number of fatalities from crash landings in the same time frame, without a parachute.
Let's say a cirrus has an EFATO and the pilot doesn't have time to deploy. Can anyone tell me what the danger is with these chutes should you approach a crashed aircraft (possibly on fire) under three circumstances? Is there some sort of fail safe to stop deployment on the ground?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Akro
With a good landing site of course it's better to force land !
that presumes you are well trained current and practice the things!
The difference is that while the aircraft is flying it's under your control as well as well as going where you want it to even
If that is slap bang into a building ! It's still under your control
With the chute out the aircraft is not under your control and in 30 to 50 kt winds that will be the horizontal impact speed!
Also one day a cirrus will come down on top of an innocent bystander on the ground so we have that to consider!
That is why I would be very selective over its use as it is not an answer to everything and should not be considered as a replacement for basic flying skills
Pace
With a good landing site of course it's better to force land !
that presumes you are well trained current and practice the things!
The difference is that while the aircraft is flying it's under your control as well as well as going where you want it to even
If that is slap bang into a building ! It's still under your control
With the chute out the aircraft is not under your control and in 30 to 50 kt winds that will be the horizontal impact speed!
Also one day a cirrus will come down on top of an innocent bystander on the ground so we have that to consider!
That is why I would be very selective over its use as it is not an answer to everything and should not be considered as a replacement for basic flying skills
Pace
85 totally successful parachute landings without a fatality is a whole lot better record, than the number of fatalities from crash landings in the same time frame, without a parachute.
There have been plenty of conventional aircraft that have landed in suburban streets with a happy ending.
And I have a dim recollection that there has been 1 fatality from a Cirrus chute deployment. I am sure someone will correct me. Plus, the overall Cirrus accident / fatality rate is a bit higher than its comparative conventional aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace:
Pace, would you like to do some calculations as to the chances of that event actually happening? I'll wager the odds are considerably longer than the odds of being hit by a meteorite. 
Also one day a cirrus will come down on top of an innocent bystander on the ground so we have that to consider!