Cirrus CAPS deployment option during emergency
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I wonder why the system on the Mooney is considered superior as it is based on the same TKS technology as far as I was aware."
Simply because it is attached to a superior aircraft.
Seriously though, there is a lot more to TKS certification than just attaching the panels and a pump.
The degree of systems redundancy required for FAA certification is staggering (3 pumps in total) plus other extras. There is a numbered standard that everything needs to be tested to (can't remember it off the top of my head). I remember reading on this site that FIKI certification on the cirrus and columbia would be nigh on impossible due to the possibility of ice accretion on the fixed undercarriage.
The Mooney remains the only factory fitted FAA approved TKS system approved for flight into known icing. I can tell you from personal experience it works extremely well both as de-ice and anti-ice - (worth every penny) and has made more challenging missions possible for me which I would have been unable to handle without it. Funnily enough I have hardly used it in the last year but the year before I went through gallons of aeroshell compound 07.
SB
Simply because it is attached to a superior aircraft.
Seriously though, there is a lot more to TKS certification than just attaching the panels and a pump.
The degree of systems redundancy required for FAA certification is staggering (3 pumps in total) plus other extras. There is a numbered standard that everything needs to be tested to (can't remember it off the top of my head). I remember reading on this site that FIKI certification on the cirrus and columbia would be nigh on impossible due to the possibility of ice accretion on the fixed undercarriage.
The Mooney remains the only factory fitted FAA approved TKS system approved for flight into known icing. I can tell you from personal experience it works extremely well both as de-ice and anti-ice - (worth every penny) and has made more challenging missions possible for me which I would have been unable to handle without it. Funnily enough I have hardly used it in the last year but the year before I went through gallons of aeroshell compound 07.
SB
Last edited by scooter boy; 3rd Nov 2007 at 18:38.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why the system on the Mooney is considered superior as it is based on the same TKS technology as far as I was aware.
I assume there must be a valid reason why a manufacture that installs a certain kit takes the least difficult path to get the certification. Do you care when you pick up loads of ice ? I do!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA requires two alternators for known-ice cert and that alone stops a lot of N-reg planes being KI certified.
However (as most N-reg pilots know) the whole "what constitudes KI" debate is pretty convoluted and that is before you start extending it to flying an N-reg in Europe, obviously using the European aviation weather services.
However (as most N-reg pilots know) the whole "what constitudes KI" debate is pretty convoluted and that is before you start extending it to flying an N-reg in Europe, obviously using the European aviation weather services.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original thread...
1600 fpm vertically will hurt - a lot - but won't kill you.
40 kts horizontally into the wrong sort of impact will kill you for certain.
The Rallye pilot on page 1 should think about this carefully.
1600 fpm vertically will hurt - a lot - but won't kill you.
40 kts horizontally into the wrong sort of impact will kill you for certain.
The Rallye pilot on page 1 should think about this carefully.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kit d'Rection KG
40 kts horizontally into the wrong sort of impact will kill you for certain.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the pilot hit his head and was knocked out
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmets
Sternone, The Robinson helicopter company have advised all pilots to wear helmets and Nomex flightsuits with gloves while flying their product.
How many Robbos do you see being flown by people attired this way?
Sure, this clothing may save a life once in a very long while, chances are you will need it the day you forget it at home!
Basically another example of liability suits leading to backside-covering advisories.
SB
How many Robbos do you see being flown by people attired this way?
Sure, this clothing may save a life once in a very long while, chances are you will need it the day you forget it at home!
Basically another example of liability suits leading to backside-covering advisories.
SB
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPS - understand it properly
worldpilot
I suggest that you get yourself a proper Cirrus instructor, you must understand the system if it will ever help you.
If you are serious about flying a Cirrus SPEND $50 and join COPA www.cirruspilots.org and then read and search the members forums.
For your instructor to give you such bad advise "don't pull over land" is unbelievable. HE does not understand what its for, and you can only get as good as he is able to teach.
What else does he not know? Has he taught you about alternator or flap failures? or brake failures? or "gotchas" in the Avionics, or how to ensure your fuel is balanced and correct, or how to even lean the thing properly?
I would be suprised if this guy knew how to lock the doors. The CAPS system could save your life one day, and HE is not prepared to learn about it and teach you some seanarios and decision trees?
If you haven't thought this thru and practiced it in your mind: when, where and how you might use this, then in an emergency you will freeze and forget a life saving option.
Do the RAF let their pilots fly a Harrier without training them on the ejection seat?
Phew!
I suggest that you get yourself a proper Cirrus instructor, you must understand the system if it will ever help you.
If you are serious about flying a Cirrus SPEND $50 and join COPA www.cirruspilots.org and then read and search the members forums.
For your instructor to give you such bad advise "don't pull over land" is unbelievable. HE does not understand what its for, and you can only get as good as he is able to teach.
What else does he not know? Has he taught you about alternator or flap failures? or brake failures? or "gotchas" in the Avionics, or how to ensure your fuel is balanced and correct, or how to even lean the thing properly?
I would be suprised if this guy knew how to lock the doors. The CAPS system could save your life one day, and HE is not prepared to learn about it and teach you some seanarios and decision trees?
If you haven't thought this thru and practiced it in your mind: when, where and how you might use this, then in an emergency you will freeze and forget a life saving option.
Do the RAF let their pilots fly a Harrier without training them on the ejection seat?
Phew!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Asia
Age: 67
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus instructor in Dubai
I was told by a CFI flying the Cirrus in Dubai you should not deploy the parachute over water as the design assumes in a parachute landing on the ground the landing gear absorbs some of the shock before the body of the aircraft hits the ground. In water the shock is absorbed directly by the body as the legs enter the water i.e. the shock goes directly into the body of the aircraft and 
the spine of the pilot and passengers.
the spine of the pilot and passengers.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of any such limitation in the POH.
Clearly the landing gear provides a crumple zone. There are other strategic crumple zones underneath the seats.
It would be interesting to better understand the dynamics - which I dont.
At parachute speeds does the undercarriage still absorb some of the impact on water - after all the spats will collide with the water first and they do present a bit of a surface area. Secondly, is the energy transferred landing on water exactly the same as on the land - or is it a little less? Thirdly, if the landing is on anything other than a flat water surface does a swell result in a different transferance of energy?
Clearly the landing gear provides a crumple zone. There are other strategic crumple zones underneath the seats.
It would be interesting to better understand the dynamics - which I dont.
At parachute speeds does the undercarriage still absorb some of the impact on water - after all the spats will collide with the water first and they do present a bit of a surface area. Secondly, is the energy transferred landing on water exactly the same as on the land - or is it a little less? Thirdly, if the landing is on anything other than a flat water surface does a swell result in a different transferance of energy?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there is the question: Is a ditching really a desparate enough situtation that you'd want to try the chute? Most ditchings in non-chute aircraft are survivable, even in low wing fixed gear planes...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is a ditching really a desparate enough situtation that you'd want to try the chute? Most ditchings in non-chute aircraft are survivable, even in low wing fixed gear planes...
The question I think is if you are going to ditch is the degree of injury on average likely to be moe or less with the chute?
I might add I dont know the answer.
Ditching into a six foot swell mind you is always going to be interesting.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question I think is if you are going to ditch is the degree of injury on average likely to be moe or less with the chute?
I might add I dont know the answer.
Ditching into a six foot swell mind you is always going to be interesting.
I might add I dont know the answer.
Ditching into a six foot swell mind you is always going to be interesting.
If you are going to ditch, is the degree of injury in this particular situation likely to be more or less with the chute?
Swell, wind, visibility/darkness, pilot confidence in executing a ditching, etc etc ...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the general idea is that a chute drop onto water might injure your back, but the aircraft will almost certainly be in one piece and reasonably sealed, whereas if you ditch conventionally (60kt+) the outcome is certainly not assured.
All all the ditchings (i.e. where the pilot was conscious and in full control) the only ones we know about were the ones which worked. All the fatal ones (which include a fair number where the pilot was doing a ferry flight etc and was dressed like an astronaut) are unknown but one has to assume that in most of them ('most' because the normal stats on pilot incapacitation are barely significant) the pilot was in full control, but still didn't pull it off and died.
The margin between a back injury, and no injury, is thin, and varies according to the person. It is like electrocution. Some people have a bad heart and will die from touching a cattle fence. If you chute-landed (water or land) 10 Cirruses, each with 4 people, I bet a % of the occupants would suffer some injuries, but purely on the basis of the % of the population who are unfit, obese, etc, what would one expect?
So far we have I believe only ONE data point to play with, which isn't much.
I would take a chute ditching every time. But I would recline the seat way back
All all the ditchings (i.e. where the pilot was conscious and in full control) the only ones we know about were the ones which worked. All the fatal ones (which include a fair number where the pilot was doing a ferry flight etc and was dressed like an astronaut) are unknown but one has to assume that in most of them ('most' because the normal stats on pilot incapacitation are barely significant) the pilot was in full control, but still didn't pull it off and died.
The margin between a back injury, and no injury, is thin, and varies according to the person. It is like electrocution. Some people have a bad heart and will die from touching a cattle fence. If you chute-landed (water or land) 10 Cirruses, each with 4 people, I bet a % of the occupants would suffer some injuries, but purely on the basis of the % of the population who are unfit, obese, etc, what would one expect?
So far we have I believe only ONE data point to play with, which isn't much.
I would take a chute ditching every time. But I would recline the seat way back
In a recent World Gliding Contest held in Sweden, pilots were given a briefing on lake landings as Sweden has extensive forested areas where landing in a lake is the better option
I know of one Canadian metal glider that landed in water; indeed, flew in it afterwards.
Yes, it helps to have a simple airframe, no engine and not many instruments and avionics.
I know of one Canadian metal glider that landed in water; indeed, flew in it afterwards.
Yes, it helps to have a simple airframe, no engine and not many instruments and avionics.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We actually know a good deal about ditchings, successful and not... For example: EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Ditching Myths Torpedoed!
I wouldn't pull a chute rather than ditch, unless circumstances were particularly bad. The main problem IMV, cold water and time to rescue, is no different...
Edited to add one more point: You are unlikely to be seriously injured in a ditching. Either you survive unharmed (by far the most likely outcome), or you die. Both options seem rather more pleasant than surviving with a crippling back injury IMHO...
I wouldn't pull a chute rather than ditch, unless circumstances were particularly bad. The main problem IMV, cold water and time to rescue, is no different...
Edited to add one more point: You are unlikely to be seriously injured in a ditching. Either you survive unharmed (by far the most likely outcome), or you die. Both options seem rather more pleasant than surviving with a crippling back injury IMHO...
Last edited by bjornhall; 8th Jul 2008 at 17:41.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CIRRUS CAPS DEPLOYMENTS - 3 in 5 days
I don't know if anyone has posted this before but quite amazingly there have been three CAPS "saves" this month! Two in the US and one in France all due to engine failures in flight......two happened at night.
Dates are 4th Jan, 6th Jan and 9th Jan.
Result 6 people alive but at the cost of three broken aeroplanes.....
Sometimes I wonder if Cirrus pilots even consider the option of a forced landing without power or do they automatically grab the handle irrespective of the terrain or proximity to an airfield. Sadly, all the airframes seem to suffer substantial damage and get written-off after a chute pull.
Has anyone died landing under a CAPS canopy? The odds seem pretty safe in these three cases with only minor injuries reported.
MB
Dates are 4th Jan, 6th Jan and 9th Jan.
Result 6 people alive but at the cost of three broken aeroplanes.....
Sometimes I wonder if Cirrus pilots even consider the option of a forced landing without power or do they automatically grab the handle irrespective of the terrain or proximity to an airfield. Sadly, all the airframes seem to suffer substantial damage and get written-off after a chute pull.
Has anyone died landing under a CAPS canopy? The odds seem pretty safe in these three cases with only minor injuries reported.
MB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a bit like airbags in cars...if the bump is such that they deploy, the vehicle is effectively a writeoff , due to the damage caused by the bags and the cost of replacement.
no doubt, the CAPS system could be refined and turn the plane into an overgrown paramotor / paraglider, with a slower.gentler,more controllable descent trajectory. this would increase the already significant "deadweight" penalty of CAPS.
The manufacturer , like the automobile trade, has made a compromise and potentially gets to sell a replacement vehicle whenever the safety system deploys. It's not in their best interests to have a "low-damage" deployment.....but there again I'm a cynical old bugger.
no doubt, the CAPS system could be refined and turn the plane into an overgrown paramotor / paraglider, with a slower.gentler,more controllable descent trajectory. this would increase the already significant "deadweight" penalty of CAPS.
The manufacturer , like the automobile trade, has made a compromise and potentially gets to sell a replacement vehicle whenever the safety system deploys. It's not in their best interests to have a "low-damage" deployment.....but there again I'm a cynical old bugger.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob
In answer to your questions:
1. Cirrus pilots are not taught to grab the handle as soon as a warning light comes on.
We are taught to make CAPS an integral part of emergencies handling and to make sure that we pull early enough to ensure a successful outcome and if we are not absolutely sure of a nailed on emergency landing, to pull rather than take the risk.
For me, at least, a 90% chance of surviving a forced landing in a field or a ditching just isn't good enough odds. YMMV!
2. When deployed within design parameters, ie max IAS 133 KTS, and for that matter significantly above that (the extremes are 34 KTS whilst inverted and over 190 KTS), the only fatality was a pilot who was taken ill at the controls and died from that whilst CAPS saved his passengers.
There was also a fatality when a pilot pulled to late after an icing event and pulled the chute off the aircraft in an uncontrolled dive at about 300 KTS.
There have, however, been several fatalities when pilots have either decided not to pull at all or have left it to late and pulled when they were to low. Hence my comments in 1, above.....
Here is a review of all CAPS activations since the Cirrus was introduced.
What is striking about it is the wide variety of circumstances in which the aircraft have come down (land, sea, someone's back garden, trees, on a truck.... Etc) with nobody in the aircraft or on the ground killed.
I hope this helps!
1. Cirrus pilots are not taught to grab the handle as soon as a warning light comes on.
We are taught to make CAPS an integral part of emergencies handling and to make sure that we pull early enough to ensure a successful outcome and if we are not absolutely sure of a nailed on emergency landing, to pull rather than take the risk.
For me, at least, a 90% chance of surviving a forced landing in a field or a ditching just isn't good enough odds. YMMV!
2. When deployed within design parameters, ie max IAS 133 KTS, and for that matter significantly above that (the extremes are 34 KTS whilst inverted and over 190 KTS), the only fatality was a pilot who was taken ill at the controls and died from that whilst CAPS saved his passengers.
There was also a fatality when a pilot pulled to late after an icing event and pulled the chute off the aircraft in an uncontrolled dive at about 300 KTS.
There have, however, been several fatalities when pilots have either decided not to pull at all or have left it to late and pulled when they were to low. Hence my comments in 1, above.....
Here is a review of all CAPS activations since the Cirrus was introduced.
What is striking about it is the wide variety of circumstances in which the aircraft have come down (land, sea, someone's back garden, trees, on a truck.... Etc) with nobody in the aircraft or on the ground killed.
I hope this helps!
