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

You're correct, you can't buy a Cirrus without the chute.

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

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

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

The Klapmeiers were absolute geniuses to dream this concept up!

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

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

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

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

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

Best...
John Deakin

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

N802DK is for sale


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


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

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.

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

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

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

BR

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, Cirrus has always had CAPS.

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

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. :)

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

Whata bout this one...








.

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

Survivors of midair plane crash horrified - People: Tales of survival - TODAY.com

Its amazing that the parachute lines didn't burn through

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

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

Binghi,

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

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

:ok:

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

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

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

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

Not many places to land
 

"What happened to the forced landing?"

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

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

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

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

For your average Cirrus owner...

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

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

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

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

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

Then I found this:

How to Steer a Parachute | eHow

Tips & Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Cirrus Salesman Pulls Chute During Demo Flight

---

http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/...ruspullaus.jpg

Cirrus Salesman Pulls Chute During Demo Flight - AVweb flash Article

Any word on why the engine stopped?

Fuel, mechanical failure?

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

Wow....:ugh::ugh: