The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
In answer to the questions you asked.
I have been flying since 2006 and have a total of 1300 odd hours, just over 1200 of them in my SR22. I flew 260 hours last year although my normal rate over the last few years is about 200.
I do have an IR and most of my flying is IFR.
I don't have "the agency" as you put it, or any other commercial link to Cirrus and, in the past have been strongly critical of them on the COPA forum.
I don't see myself as "passionate" about Cirrus per se: I am very passionate about safety and don't want inexperienced Cirrus pilots to be put off using a proven life saver by things they read on forums like this. Especially when those statements are demonstrably inaccurate.
I'm not 100% sure from your description of the "gormless pilot", but I'm pretty sure I know which deployment that was. If I'm right, this was a VFR pilot flying a Cirrus SRV (i.e not IFR equipped) who had a VMC into IMC incident.
As we both know all to well, incidents of that type are one of the biggest killers of GA pilots and I think it's infinitely preferable for this pilot to have pulled the chute and have to face being called "gormless" than the alternative.
I recall a Cirrus fatal accident at South Bend Indiana where a VFR pilot got into exactly this situation and killed himself and two children.
Engine failure is far from the only problem the chute can help with (it doesn't actually "cure" anything!). Off the top of my head, not referring to the record so not a comprehensive list, actual, real CAPS saves to date have included structural failure (broken flap hinge), VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset, pilot incapacitation.
This last one saved the family of a pilot who died at the controls, I think of a heart attack.
Let's also put the deployment parameters into context.
The POH says that the maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 Knots and the altitude 2000 feet.
There have actually been successful deployments at 400 feet and at speeds ranging from 34 Knots (inverted!) to 186 knots.
So no, it's not a magic reset button but it has saved an awful lot of lives. The other side of the coin is that there have been far to many Cirrus pilots killed when the chute would almost certainly have saved them.
And not all "gormless" pilots: Manfred Stolle was, by all accounts, a damn good pilot and he still died. As I said in my earlier post, nobody knows why he didn't pull and live.
In answer to the questions you asked.
I have been flying since 2006 and have a total of 1300 odd hours, just over 1200 of them in my SR22. I flew 260 hours last year although my normal rate over the last few years is about 200.
I do have an IR and most of my flying is IFR.
I don't have "the agency" as you put it, or any other commercial link to Cirrus and, in the past have been strongly critical of them on the COPA forum.
I don't see myself as "passionate" about Cirrus per se: I am very passionate about safety and don't want inexperienced Cirrus pilots to be put off using a proven life saver by things they read on forums like this. Especially when those statements are demonstrably inaccurate.
I'm not 100% sure from your description of the "gormless pilot", but I'm pretty sure I know which deployment that was. If I'm right, this was a VFR pilot flying a Cirrus SRV (i.e not IFR equipped) who had a VMC into IMC incident.
As we both know all to well, incidents of that type are one of the biggest killers of GA pilots and I think it's infinitely preferable for this pilot to have pulled the chute and have to face being called "gormless" than the alternative.
I recall a Cirrus fatal accident at South Bend Indiana where a VFR pilot got into exactly this situation and killed himself and two children.
Engine failure is far from the only problem the chute can help with (it doesn't actually "cure" anything!). Off the top of my head, not referring to the record so not a comprehensive list, actual, real CAPS saves to date have included structural failure (broken flap hinge), VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset, pilot incapacitation.
This last one saved the family of a pilot who died at the controls, I think of a heart attack.
Let's also put the deployment parameters into context.
The POH says that the maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 Knots and the altitude 2000 feet.
There have actually been successful deployments at 400 feet and at speeds ranging from 34 Knots (inverted!) to 186 knots.
So no, it's not a magic reset button but it has saved an awful lot of lives. The other side of the coin is that there have been far to many Cirrus pilots killed when the chute would almost certainly have saved them.
And not all "gormless" pilots: Manfred Stolle was, by all accounts, a damn good pilot and he still died. As I said in my earlier post, nobody knows why he didn't pull and live.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset" seem to happen more often to Cirrus pilots than others.
Here's why I think that is (I only have flown a SR20, I believe SR22 is similar in its design philosophy?).
Cirrus is very much a procedurally operated airplane, as opposed to other more conservative planes produced by Piper and such. It has very little to no feedback to pilot apart from the instruments on what the plane is currently doing. Quiet cabin, no real feedback through controls and so on. Alot of the flying is done using autopilot (which is worrying, there are many CAPS "saves" caused by autopilot induced problems).
For a less experienced pilot, you can easily slowly end up being badly behind the airplane.
On a surprising situation (such as uncommanded autopilot action etc) and a pilot without considerable hand-flying experience, it is very difficult to get back ahead of the airplane. That is why many of the CAPS "saves" are due to simply losing control of the airplane.
This is my opinion, happy to hear why it's wrong
Here's why I think that is (I only have flown a SR20, I believe SR22 is similar in its design philosophy?).
Cirrus is very much a procedurally operated airplane, as opposed to other more conservative planes produced by Piper and such. It has very little to no feedback to pilot apart from the instruments on what the plane is currently doing. Quiet cabin, no real feedback through controls and so on. Alot of the flying is done using autopilot (which is worrying, there are many CAPS "saves" caused by autopilot induced problems).
For a less experienced pilot, you can easily slowly end up being badly behind the airplane.
On a surprising situation (such as uncommanded autopilot action etc) and a pilot without considerable hand-flying experience, it is very difficult to get back ahead of the airplane. That is why many of the CAPS "saves" are due to simply losing control of the airplane.
This is my opinion, happy to hear why it's wrong
Here's another slant on this subject.
How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?
Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.
Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.
Are we seeing some of these things already?
MJ
How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?
Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.
Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.
Are we seeing some of these things already?
MJ
I'm fairly sure the aircraft that landed in the Hudson river never flew again. From the airframe's point of view, the pilot may as well have pulled a parachute had one been available.
Here's another slant on this subject.
How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?
Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.
Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.
Are we seeing some of these things already?
MJ
How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?
Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.
Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.
Are we seeing some of these things already?
MJ
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alot of the flying is done using autopilot
My own practice is to fly about 75% of departures and approaches by hand when I am single pilot (it's important to stay current on autopilot approaches as well) and 100% on autopilot when carrying passengers which I do relatively infrequently. That works for me but YMMV!
(which is worrying, there are many CAPS "saves" caused by autopilot induced problems).
"VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset" seem to happen more often to Cirrus pilots than others.
Whether that assertion is true or not, there are far to many of those incidents regardless of the type of aircraft involved.
The common factor in that type of accident is most often the pilot's decision making and, as I said in an earlier post: Cirrus pilots have no monopoly on stupidity or incompetence (or bad luck come to that)!
Again: the answer, whatever the aircraft, is to do proper training and participate in safety initiatives
For a less experienced pilot, you can easily slowly end up being badly behind the airplane.
Again: that's why so much emphasis is placed on proper training and participation in safety initiatives. If you do that, it's easy to understand what's going on.
It's striking to me how high a proportion of Cirrus accidents happen to people who don't do that. But I suspect that's true of pilots of other aircraft types as well.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New here.
Flying an Eclipse jet.
Previously owned 2 Cirrus.
Glider pilot.
Learning how to quote...
Dear 007helicopter,
1.5 years ago: "Clearly this success rate can not last "
It has lasted!
As of 19 April 2014
43 CAPS Save Events
With 87 survivors (9 serious injuries, 7 minor injuries, 67 uninjured) and 1 fatality (the one at low altitude)
Flying an Eclipse jet.
Previously owned 2 Cirrus.
Glider pilot.
Learning how to quote...
Dear 007helicopter,
1.5 years ago: "Clearly this success rate can not last "
It has lasted!
As of 19 April 2014
43 CAPS Save Events
With 87 survivors (9 serious injuries, 7 minor injuries, 67 uninjured) and 1 fatality (the one at low altitude)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning Jonzarno. Thank you for your comprehensive replies to some of my issues with the Cirrus.
Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.
The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.
So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.
It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.
Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.
The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.
So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.
It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we’re businessmen and accountants and doctors and software designers who fly 125 hours a year.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
Thanks for your reply, a few thoughts on it:
No: money doesn't buy safety, it buys capability.
Whether that is what you get in the Robin HR 200 in which I did my PPL, the Cirrus I fly now or the Eclipse jet to which a number of Cirrus owners (still COPA members, by the way!) have upgraded. The capability you need obviously depends on the missions you fly and the Cirrus suits what I need it for.
What does buy you safety as you use that capability is a close understanding of the aircraft, good maintenance and, above all, training and being current on all aspects of flying.
You never asked about this in your earlier post, so I didn't mention it, but I have been to two Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program weekends, my wife and daughter have both done the excellent Partner in Command course and I have also done emergencies training in a full motion simulator, aerobatics and mountain flying training.
Again no. My flying in airways isn't because the "gadgets have tempted me".
In common with many Cirrus pilots, I use my aircraft mainly for business travel (about 75% of my flying). Given that the aircraft is designed to operate safely and efficiently in airways under IFR, it is far safer and quicker to do that on the typical 300-400 mile flights I do. You might as well criticise pilots who fly twins or turbines in airways for the same reasons.
Sure, I use the autopilot in the cruise - that's what it's there for, but I hand fly a substantial proportion of departures, arrivals and approaches as set out in my earlier post and do that to IFR rather than VFR standards.
This is a real risk in the same way that a misread of the weather or a moment's inattention can kill a VFR pilot. But blame the equipment? No! Asiana was absolutely pilot error and, as I recall, the training regime carried a substantial part of the blame.
The way to counter this risk is by adhering to very clear operating procedures centred around the use of checklists and reminders and ensure that you stay ahead of the aircraft.
But nobody's perfect all the time and, like every other pilot, I've made my share of mistakes!
CAPS is exactly that: a get out of jail card. Better not to get into jail in the first place but, if you do, better still not to die there.
I do agree that all flying skills atrophy with lack of use, not just hand flying skills but IFR disciplines as well. Currency and training are the only known antidote!
Thanks for your reply, a few thoughts on it:
Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.
Whether that is what you get in the Robin HR 200 in which I did my PPL, the Cirrus I fly now or the Eclipse jet to which a number of Cirrus owners (still COPA members, by the way!) have upgraded. The capability you need obviously depends on the missions you fly and the Cirrus suits what I need it for.
What does buy you safety as you use that capability is a close understanding of the aircraft, good maintenance and, above all, training and being current on all aspects of flying.
You never asked about this in your earlier post, so I didn't mention it, but I have been to two Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program weekends, my wife and daughter have both done the excellent Partner in Command course and I have also done emergencies training in a full motion simulator, aerobatics and mountain flying training.
The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.
In common with many Cirrus pilots, I use my aircraft mainly for business travel (about 75% of my flying). Given that the aircraft is designed to operate safely and efficiently in airways under IFR, it is far safer and quicker to do that on the typical 300-400 mile flights I do. You might as well criticise pilots who fly twins or turbines in airways for the same reasons.
Sure, I use the autopilot in the cruise - that's what it's there for, but I hand fly a substantial proportion of departures, arrivals and approaches as set out in my earlier post and do that to IFR rather than VFR standards.
So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.
Blaming the equipment.
The way to counter this risk is by adhering to very clear operating procedures centred around the use of checklists and reminders and ensure that you stay ahead of the aircraft.
But nobody's perfect all the time and, like every other pilot, I've made my share of mistakes!
It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.
I do agree that all flying skills atrophy with lack of use, not just hand flying skills but IFR disciplines as well. Currency and training are the only known antidote!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't sterotype me with that blanket description. The nerve of some people.....
Please remember that he wrote it in the aftermath of the tragic and, probably, needless death of a good friend and, for that reason, perhaps he deserves to be cut a little slack.
For my part, I certainly meant no offence in quoting it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why are the Cirrus aircraft developing such a reputation for fatalities?
Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?
It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?
Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way? Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used. Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately
Have I just answered my own question?
SS
Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?
It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?
Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way? Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used. Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately
Have I just answered my own question?
SS
It was just a thought BPF. No need to be rude. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to see information on incident rates per flying hour and fatal incidents per flying hour for a number of types - trainers (c152, pa28-161, pa38), post PPL tourers such as the Trinidad/Tobago/Arrow/Comanche, permit types such as the Piper Cub and the ubiquitous RV family. These cover a number of different types of flying and when compared with the same data for the Cirrus, ought to give a more balanced view of risk. The most similar types of flying would probably come from the Socata flyers, but the others would give useful perspective imo.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno, I am pleased that you have persuaded your wife and daughter to enroll on the flying partner training, and know what to do should you become incapacitated. Perhaps they could also go for the PPL and the IR? Would they want to?
But it saddens me that you use your Cirrus mainly for business travel, with trips usually from 300/400 miles. Anyone who uses a light aircraft for business reasons is often under pressure to fly when it may be inappropriate; eg, bad weather, fatigue, dicky tummy.... a business meeting that is critical.
We used to call the V-tail Bonanza the "Doctor Killer". Try advising a consultant kidney surgeon that he really shouldn't fly today!
But it saddens me that you use your Cirrus mainly for business travel, with trips usually from 300/400 miles. Anyone who uses a light aircraft for business reasons is often under pressure to fly when it may be inappropriate; eg, bad weather, fatigue, dicky tummy.... a business meeting that is critical.
We used to call the V-tail Bonanza the "Doctor Killer". Try advising a consultant kidney surgeon that he really shouldn't fly today!
MJ
You are right my posts was impolite and for that I apologize. The point you make however is not sensible. Certification standards will never allow the kinds of shortcuts you are describing.
The Cirrus parachute issue is an obviously an emotive one however the accident data shows an unsurprising correlation between training and accidents.
The Cirrus factory and the COPA have put together the most comprehensive training course available for any small aircraft. The Cirrus pilots that have completed all of the initial training and keep up with the recurrent training are not the ones crashing and only represent a small hand full of chute pulls. All the rest are from Cirrus pilots that did not avail themselves of the available training which I would suggest, speaks volumes about their attitude towards safe flying.
Personally the bottom line is I would rather see live stupid pilots than dead stupid pilots. More importantly there are many passengers flying with those stupid pilots that are still alive because of the chute. I fail to see how anybody can honestly argue that is a bad thing......
You are right my posts was impolite and for that I apologize. The point you make however is not sensible. Certification standards will never allow the kinds of shortcuts you are describing.
The Cirrus parachute issue is an obviously an emotive one however the accident data shows an unsurprising correlation between training and accidents.
The Cirrus factory and the COPA have put together the most comprehensive training course available for any small aircraft. The Cirrus pilots that have completed all of the initial training and keep up with the recurrent training are not the ones crashing and only represent a small hand full of chute pulls. All the rest are from Cirrus pilots that did not avail themselves of the available training which I would suggest, speaks volumes about their attitude towards safe flying.
Personally the bottom line is I would rather see live stupid pilots than dead stupid pilots. More importantly there are many passengers flying with those stupid pilots that are still alive because of the chute. I fail to see how anybody can honestly argue that is a bad thing......
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 1st May 2014 at 21:05.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
Thanks for your concern but I've never had a problem cancelling a flight if something is wrong although I've really been quite lucky in that regard and not had to cancel to many.
As far as my family goes: my wife certainly won't do a PPL course but I live in hope that my daughter may!
I am all to aware of the Vee Tail doctor killer tag. I think it was that which spawned the Beech training program which, in turn, influenced the Cirrus program.
shortstripper
Because people on forums like this perpetuate the myth that they are death traps and ignore the facts.
Because some accidents lie outside the capability envelope of the system. But more disturbingly, far to many people have not pulled when they should have. Please see the example I quoted earlier.
I don't have comparative statistics available on that and don't want to make silly generalisations. There have been enough of those already.
What I will say is that the incidence of accidents of all types in Cirrus aircraft can be documented to be significantly lower amongst pilots who are members of COPA and participate in the training and safety initiatives.
If you're in a stall / spin turning finals and going to die, you'll try anything. Also, pilots under extreme stress are believed to have either forgotten they have it or thought they could make a safe landing and then pulled to late when they realised they wouldn't make it. See the example I quoted.
That is a quite ridiculously unfair and inaccurate statement.
In every case of a fatality under CAPS of which I'm aware it has been deployed below 400 ft except in one case when it was deployed in a dive at over 300 knots after an icing event and the chute ripped off the plane.
Please see the comments about operating parameters in my earlier post. I thought they were fairly clear but will be happy to explain them further if there's any aspect you don't understand.
Can you give me an example of an inappropriate CAPS pull? I can think of one or possibly two that may not have been necessary. Out of 43 successful saves and 87 survivors. Not a bad percentage?
Oh yes! To your own satisfaction, you certainly have.
Thanks for your concern but I've never had a problem cancelling a flight if something is wrong although I've really been quite lucky in that regard and not had to cancel to many.
As far as my family goes: my wife certainly won't do a PPL course but I live in hope that my daughter may!
I am all to aware of the Vee Tail doctor killer tag. I think it was that which spawned the Beech training program which, in turn, influenced the Cirrus program.
shortstripper
So why are the Cirrus aircraft developing such a reputation for fatalities?
Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?
It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?
What I will say is that the incidence of accidents of all types in Cirrus aircraft can be documented to be significantly lower amongst pilots who are members of COPA and participate in the training and safety initiatives.
Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way?
Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used.
In every case of a fatality under CAPS of which I'm aware it has been deployed below 400 ft except in one case when it was deployed in a dive at over 300 knots after an icing event and the chute ripped off the plane.
Please see the comments about operating parameters in my earlier post. I thought they were fairly clear but will be happy to explain them further if there's any aspect you don't understand.
Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately
Have I just answered my own question?
Thanks BPF, and I cant argue with the points you make. If a BRS is truly in addition to existing levels of redundancy, then I'm in favour of it. I guess I'm just a little more sceptical about the relationship between Manufacturers and Certification Authorities.
I've read all the reasoning and logic put forward by Cirrus to the FAA and the JAA, where conventional spin recovery, and BRS deployment appear to be seen as essentially equivalent outcomes, and I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with a POH that has the use of a BRS as the only recommended spin recovery action.
I know these things shouldn't be emotive, but that's the nature of people. I wonder if the emotive argument will shift the first time a BRS drops a fully loaded aircraft on top of a family saloon. ('sedan' for you colonials)
MJ
I've read all the reasoning and logic put forward by Cirrus to the FAA and the JAA, where conventional spin recovery, and BRS deployment appear to be seen as essentially equivalent outcomes, and I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with a POH that has the use of a BRS as the only recommended spin recovery action.
I know these things shouldn't be emotive, but that's the nature of people. I wonder if the emotive argument will shift the first time a BRS drops a fully loaded aircraft on top of a family saloon. ('sedan' for you colonials)
MJ
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all the reasoning and logic put forward by Cirrus to the FAA and the JAA, where conventional spin recovery, and BRS deployment appear to be seen as essentially equivalent outcomes, and I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with a POH that has the use of a BRS as the only recommended spin recovery action.
I think the original decision to get the FAA to accept CAPS as an equivalent level of safety was taken at the time to save certification time and money. It probably made sense at the time, but has spawned the myth that you can't recover a Cirrus from a spin.
I wonder if the emotive argument will shift the first time a BRS drops a fully loaded aircraft on top of a family saloon. ('sedan' for you colonials)
As has been posted here many times before: when the Cirrus went through its EASA certification, it demonstrated spin recovery successfully.
MJ