Ballistic Recovery System
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wisbech
Age: 44
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't pull the 'chute if I had an engine failure in the C-42, like most microlights it's relatively easy to put in a field.
However if I was flying a Cirrus I would pull: It lands at twice the speed of a C-42 so a bigger field is needed and less room for error. Also landing at motorway speeds in a boggy field or one with tall crops is going to be nasty, and so I would assume a better outcome descending under canopy.
Our C-42 BRS has not been tested on type, it's experimental and what was done by test pilots in the Cirrus will be done by the first C-42 pilot to deploy one.
However if I was flying a Cirrus I would pull: It lands at twice the speed of a C-42 so a bigger field is needed and less room for error. Also landing at motorway speeds in a boggy field or one with tall crops is going to be nasty, and so I would assume a better outcome descending under canopy.
Our C-42 BRS has not been tested on type, it's experimental and what was done by test pilots in the Cirrus will be done by the first C-42 pilot to deploy one.
The BRS in the Cirrus had to be tested, as it was used as the means of complying with the regulations which required a reliable spin recovery. Unlike the Cirrus, the C42 has been shown to consistently recover from a spin.
I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.
G
I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.
G
Genghis
The AvWeb article you quoted is 3 years old. The latest article from AvWeb quotes a 2014 accident rate of .056/100,000. That is where my comment of half the rate of comparable aircraft came from.
While the Cirrus used to have a higher than expected accident rate, there is no question that it has been dramatically reduced. The only think that has changed is the training program so it seems likely that this has contributed to the better stats. In any case there has been a very high correlation between those who have not taken one of the formal courses and who have had an accident.
I find it discouraging that many posters seem to think that it is preferable for a pilot who screws up to die, rather than have a last resort to save themselves.
My bottom line is simple. If I had a choice between 2 SEP,s to fly, one with a chute and one without, I would take the one with a chute.
The AvWeb article you quoted is 3 years old. The latest article from AvWeb quotes a 2014 accident rate of .056/100,000. That is where my comment of half the rate of comparable aircraft came from.
While the Cirrus used to have a higher than expected accident rate, there is no question that it has been dramatically reduced. The only think that has changed is the training program so it seems likely that this has contributed to the better stats. In any case there has been a very high correlation between those who have not taken one of the formal courses and who have had an accident.
I find it discouraging that many posters seem to think that it is preferable for a pilot who screws up to die, rather than have a last resort to save themselves.
My bottom line is simple. If I had a choice between 2 SEP,s to fly, one with a chute and one without, I would take the one with a chute.
So would I - if you don't have it, you don't have the option.
Could you link to the new article? Presumably your figure is 0.56/100,000 not 0.056? I don't think mind you that the population size is so large that you can just take one year as meaning anything - normally I'd say that 10 years is a reasonable minimum period for sensible statistical analysis, maybe 5 for a very large population. It's a bit like a warm summer being taken as evidence that there's no global warming! So I would take anything from a single year as a glitch, whether it's very good or very bad.
Of course more good training makes for safer pilots! And that Cirrus are forcing their customers to accept that extra training is no bad thing.
G
Could you link to the new article? Presumably your figure is 0.56/100,000 not 0.056? I don't think mind you that the population size is so large that you can just take one year as meaning anything - normally I'd say that 10 years is a reasonable minimum period for sensible statistical analysis, maybe 5 for a very large population. It's a bit like a warm summer being taken as evidence that there's no global warming! So I would take anything from a single year as a glitch, whether it's very good or very bad.
Of course more good training makes for safer pilots! And that Cirrus are forcing their customers to accept that extra training is no bad thing.
G
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike the Cirrus, the C42 has been shown to consistently recover from a spin.
At the time of the original FAA certification, the chute was submitted as an equivalent to spin recovery, not as an alternative because spin recovery was impossible, obviously it isn't. One reason was the fact that spin recovery is no longer part of the PPL syllabus.
I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.
The principles are very simple:
If you have time to fix the problem, by all means do so, but don't wait until it's too late. Hence: pull early.
If you aren't sure you have a safe landing made, pull before it's too late. Better to pull if maybe you could have made it than not to pull if maybe you couldn't. Hence: pull often.
If anyone wants to bet their life on that philosophy being wrong: feel free. Far too many have already. And lost.
FWIW, I have personally been in an emergency in which CAPS was an option I seriously considered. What happened was that the alternate air flapper valve on my aircraft broke just after takeoff leaving me with serioulsy reduced power.
In accordance with the COPA philosophy, I immediately considered CAPS but was below 400 ft but with enough power to keep climbing albeit slowly. I continued the climb out and, eventually, made 2000 ft (with my hand on the handle
). At that point, I re-evaluated my situation and decided I could make it back to the airport if things didn't get worse and decided to do so.It was IMC but with a ceiling of about 800 ft so I shot the ILS back into my home airport and landed safely.
BUT:
At any time above 400 ft before I knew I had the landing secure, I was prepared and determined to pull. My assumption at all times was that something WOULD go wrong and I would have to pull.
In the event, I landed safely without pulling. No big drama and it doesn't make me a good pilot. But, for me, it said that my training worked. Because I really would have pulled. And would have been happy to be pilloried on here for doing so.
Ah, here we go.
Cirrus Reports Dramatic Accident Reduction - AVweb flash Article
So a running mean of 1.01/100k.hrs. Still about double the fatality rate of a DA42, and about half again that of a C182.
Full credit to the company for the effort put into bringing the fatal accident rate down. But, Cessna and Diamond didn't need to put that effort in apparently, and are still rather better. There are problems there, or Cirrus wouldn't be having to put anything like so much effort into trying to solve them.
This document is telling as well:
http://cirrusaircraft.com/static/img/CAPS_Guide.pdf
Page 13 recommends initial type training, then a 90 date check, and subsequently 2 "weekend" recurrency checks a year. That is basically airliner pilot standards being used to achieve in a relatively straightforward single, a 50% worse fatality rate than a C182 or about the same as a Columbia - both of those without that training.
There is definitely a problem there, even if Cirrus to their credit are putting massive efforts into solving it.
G
Cirrus Reports Dramatic Accident Reduction - AVweb flash Article
After several years of tweaking training programs, Cirrus reports that the fatal accident rate for its aircraft has dropped dramatically in the past couple of years and is now measurably below the fatal accident rate for GA as a whole. At the Aero show in Friedrichshafen, Germany, the company’s Travis Klumb told assembled journalists that both the overall rate and the fatal accident rate has reached all-time lows for both the SR20 and SR22.
In this podcast, Klumb said as recently as 2004, the Cirrus fatal accident rate was about twice the industry average at 2.6/100,000 hours. In 2013, the Cirrus fatal rate had dropped to 1.01/100,000, below the industry average of 1.2. Klumb said 2014 is looking similarly promising, with initial data show a rate of .56/100,000.
In this podcast, Klumb said as recently as 2004, the Cirrus fatal accident rate was about twice the industry average at 2.6/100,000 hours. In 2013, the Cirrus fatal rate had dropped to 1.01/100,000, below the industry average of 1.2. Klumb said 2014 is looking similarly promising, with initial data show a rate of .56/100,000.
Full credit to the company for the effort put into bringing the fatal accident rate down. But, Cessna and Diamond didn't need to put that effort in apparently, and are still rather better. There are problems there, or Cirrus wouldn't be having to put anything like so much effort into trying to solve them.
This document is telling as well:
http://cirrusaircraft.com/static/img/CAPS_Guide.pdf
Page 13 recommends initial type training, then a 90 date check, and subsequently 2 "weekend" recurrency checks a year. That is basically airliner pilot standards being used to achieve in a relatively straightforward single, a 50% worse fatality rate than a C182 or about the same as a Columbia - both of those without that training.
There is definitely a problem there, even if Cirrus to their credit are putting massive efforts into solving it.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they also fiddle with the numbers G.
They exclude data from the real old **** kickers and training flights and only take some of the GA data.
Apparently what the rest of us consider the most dangerous flying ie flying close to the ground doing PFL's, 8 landings an hour etc. Is too safe to include in the data because it lowers the accident rates to much.
They exclude data from the real old **** kickers and training flights and only take some of the GA data.
Apparently what the rest of us consider the most dangerous flying ie flying close to the ground doing PFL's, 8 landings an hour etc. Is too safe to include in the data because it lowers the accident rates to much.
I did notice that they claim that the stats are worsened because of the number of long trips flown in the type - which should really have the opposite effect as en-route accidents in any aircraft type, are incredibly rare compared to those around the circuit / pattern.
However, I'm not going to pick a fight with anybody here over it - not least because somebody on this thread has very kindly just emailed me and offered a flight with him in his Cirrus and a few hours going over the training he's had on it. There is a certain appeal in actually having flown the aeroplane I'm talking about, and just as much in spending some quality time talking it through with somebody who knows the aeroplane well - and my opinions should mean a bit more then, and may well change (well probably not about the statistics, that's just maths, but I really would like to know more about the aeroplane close up).
G
However, I'm not going to pick a fight with anybody here over it - not least because somebody on this thread has very kindly just emailed me and offered a flight with him in his Cirrus and a few hours going over the training he's had on it. There is a certain appeal in actually having flown the aeroplane I'm talking about, and just as much in spending some quality time talking it through with somebody who knows the aeroplane well - and my opinions should mean a bit more then, and may well change (well probably not about the statistics, that's just maths, but I really would like to know more about the aeroplane close up).
G
Genghis:
I have the same experience and am of exactly the same view.
I was determined to keep out of this one but here's another interesting quote from Page 5.
MJ
I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.
I was determined to keep out of this one but here's another interesting quote from Page 5.
Any time a Cirrus pilot experiences a
loss of control or spin, the use of CAPS is required.
loss of control or spin, the use of CAPS is required.
MJ
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are nice machines.
They fly like any other SEP.
But they require a reasonably in depth systems knowledge to be safe. Certainly to a much higher level than most SEP's in fact more so than some of the high power SET's
The one I was in the PIC if he had been my FO would have got a huge post flight bollocking for having there head down way to much fannying around with "systems" when you could see the sodding runway from 20-30 miles away. Screwing around with the AP while doing a visual approach for gawds sake.
Look out the
ing window and land on the runway FFS.
They fly like any other SEP.
But they require a reasonably in depth systems knowledge to be safe. Certainly to a much higher level than most SEP's in fact more so than some of the high power SET's
The one I was in the PIC if he had been my FO would have got a huge post flight bollocking for having there head down way to much fannying around with "systems" when you could see the sodding runway from 20-30 miles away. Screwing around with the AP while doing a visual approach for gawds sake.
Look out the
ing window and land on the runway FFS.
However, I'm not going to pick a fight with anybody here over it - not least because somebody on this thread has very kindly just emailed me and offered a flight with him in his Cirrus and a few hours going over the training he's had on it. There is a certain appeal in actually having flown the aeroplane I'm talking about, and just as much in spending some quality time talking it through with somebody who knows the aeroplane well - and my opinions should mean a bit more then, and may well change (well probably not about the statistics, that's just maths, but I really would like to know more about the aeroplane close up).
G
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion on pro/con BRS in a Cirrus is boring and will most probably never end, mainly due to the fact that everybody has an opinion and nobody is interested in getting hard figures together. They are there and we go with'em as is. So let's stop fighting.
I did fly Cirrus SR22 and I did fly Corvalis 400. Both are nice and fast, when flown within the envelope. In real world testing the Corvalis was more forgiving at the edges of the envelope, while the Cirrus gets hefty, when passing the envelope. If you have the standard overweight-outbalance situation common at the airports I usually fly, then the Cirrus feels more dangerous to me. I would guestimate that, if you change your mood and attitude towards less risk taking from the standard bush flying to precise handling and a less forgiving machine, you could get used to either plane. But this has nothing to do with BRS. I don't like the BRS by many reasons, one is it outsources the awareness for risk from pilots brain to a red pull button. Not everybody can cope with this.
I did fly Cirrus SR22 and I did fly Corvalis 400. Both are nice and fast, when flown within the envelope. In real world testing the Corvalis was more forgiving at the edges of the envelope, while the Cirrus gets hefty, when passing the envelope. If you have the standard overweight-outbalance situation common at the airports I usually fly, then the Cirrus feels more dangerous to me. I would guestimate that, if you change your mood and attitude towards less risk taking from the standard bush flying to precise handling and a less forgiving machine, you could get used to either plane. But this has nothing to do with BRS. I don't like the BRS by many reasons, one is it outsources the awareness for risk from pilots brain to a red pull button. Not everybody can cope with this.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of a why is one group of the system having to use them more than another.
Could this be the next of the endless stories of "there are two kind of ..."? I think it is only human - if you chose two contradicting categories, most of the times you will have people behaving one or another. I would put this, following my US instructors world view, into the drawer pilots vs airmen.
Assume you have a day with predicted good weather. You arrive at the airport, do preflight checks, roll your machine out of the hangar and on final check you find the weather worse. One pilot might take off and rely on god's hole of the day, but an airmen may decide it is no good, pushes the plane back into the hangar and drives home to cuddle mom?
Could this be the next of the endless stories of "there are two kind of ..."? I think it is only human - if you chose two contradicting categories, most of the times you will have people behaving one or another. I would put this, following my US instructors world view, into the drawer pilots vs airmen.
Assume you have a day with predicted good weather. You arrive at the airport, do preflight checks, roll your machine out of the hangar and on final check you find the weather worse. One pilot might take off and rely on god's hole of the day, but an airmen may decide it is no good, pushes the plane back into the hangar and drives home to cuddle mom?
