DO, it was the V tail Bonanza, which got the tag of Doctor Killer. A great deal of myth, but basically, yes, well heeled individuals, jumping into a fast aeroplane, which required training and understanding, with a cruise pretty close to Vne. Put the nose down, and well, it broke up.

Stories of guys running into VMC, and stuffing the nose down, the usual stuff.......

Later models had a mod, strengthening the ruddervator area, however, this was a mod, and the original issue of high speed, slick airframe, still holds. Speed management skills, and a good understanding of its capabilities, a much required pre-requisite on this aeroplane.

No, I do not think Cirrus owners are 'different', i just think the mentality of 'what can go wrong with this thing', is perhaps an issue.

Dont Overfil

The Doctor Killer was the single engine V tailed Bonanza not the Baron.
The short time I have experienced the Cirrus The main trait I noticed was a very lively roll rate which I timed as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine.
hand flown by an inexperienced instrument pilot it would be easy to over control in roll which is what appears to have happened here!
I loved the Cirrus and its chute the main question in my mind being that having the chute will....

A) lull inexperienced or uncurrent pilots into just the situation where they need to use the chute ie at night or into bad weather.

B) Because of its effectiveness a question mark over overuse of the chute when a competent pilot should not need to use it.
I feel there should be more discussion on when the chute should be used ie for engine failure.

C) a clarification of where not to use the chute unless the aircraft is unflyable ie over built up areas.

I do see a comparison with a pilot wearing a chute. When would he vacate the aircraft? Would he vacate and abandon the aircraft if the aircraft engine stopped? NO
Would he vacate in bad weather NO and YES only when loss of control occurs
Would he abandon ship on engine failure at night?

The fact that the chute lowers the aircraft to the ground and not one occupant seems to change the emphasis of when and where the chute should be used and in what circumstances?

That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!


Pace

Most have suffered from the leans at some time. It is never comfortable.

It would seem the pilot had a perfectly good autopilot available. Use it. It will maintain the aircraft in level flight and it will maintain a 700 foot rate of climb with three button pushes and a twiddle of the heading bug.

I actually don't think this is much to do with the chute which is why I tried to steer the discussion away from this aspect before my thread got combined with this one.

I think far more relevant is how and when to resort to the autopilot and in what circumstances this might not be enough to save the day. In the circumstances as appear to be described and given that I felt extremely disorientated the first thing I would have done would have been to engage the autopilot, then set up a climb to establish terrain clearance, then done a reality check on my heading to ensure it was the "best" heading to take up, then possibly declare a Pan given that I wasnt fly the published missed nor had I informed AT my intentions. Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?

If it fails (Yes autopilots do fail)

In bad weather and moderate to severe turbulence, windshear icing just to name a few.

All these gadgets should be an addition to piloting skills not a replacement for lack of piloting skills.

But yes in this specific situation I do not understand why the pilot did not use the autopilot!

Pace

I really do not understand what you mean by that. The manufacturer would never, and probably could not comment, on how an owner operates an in built safety device. The manufacturer in their manuals state do not exceed known limits, and yet many (pilots) do precisely that.

What do you mean by

Challenges conventional training.

The chute??? How is that precisely?

MaxRed

There is already as discussed earlier in the thread a manufacturer SOP for engine failure where use of the chute is mentioned if a conventional forced landing is not possible or advisable!
Others consider the chute should be used as a SOP for all engine failure!
That contradicts the manufacturer recommendations.
So we instantly have a conflict of opinion.
That is one example!
Conventional training is to force land hence use if the chute for engine failure is against conventional training!
Hope that makes things clearer ?
Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?

Pace

Fuji my take on reading between the lines on this incident is that he had lost control, did not consider or feel he had time to correct the situation and to be fair to him did what many others failed to do and pulled the chute in time. I would have considered the height he was at was critical for pulling the chute, if he messed up the autopilot and lost more altitude at that point he would no longer have the chute as a reliable option.

If he was good enough to quickly and deftly use the autopilot to regain control he likely would never have got in that situation in the first place.

The latest perspective Cirrus aircraft have one blue button on the autopilot, press it and the autopilot will immediately regain straight and level.

To achieve this with the STEC55 you would sync the heading bug, hit HDG and ALT and regain straight and level flight - under high stress I bet a few of us could mess up that simple flow.

Most chute pulls are going to attract a fair amount of criticism whatever the circumstances, often it may well be justified, often I think there for the grace of god go I.

Sorry Pace, I have reread the thread and cannot see any mention of SOP from Cirrus.

What I did see is the above, which appears to contradict what you have said in your last post.

Hence my confusion at your posts. I am away to look up the SOP from Cirrus.

No, I think you spelt it correctly. Well done.

Maybe it does, the example of flying at night, some would feel safer with a chute and therefore choose to fly at night which is riskier than day. Or flying over Mountains and Hostile terrain, I do this and would prefer to have a Chute, would I do it in an aircraft without one? not sure to be honest.

I personally do not think it increase the risk profile significantly of most Cirrus Pilots That I personally know, like wise having ABS breaks and Air Bags in my car does not make me take more risks in my car

MaxRed

My deepest and sincerest apologies :ok: it was posted up in the other long thread on Cirrus and was the as stated the Cirrus standpoint on the use of the chute regarding engine failure.
Basically glide to a suitable landing spot (ie conventional) If one is not available you may want to consider using the chute (unconventional) ;)
I am sure someone will post up the exact extract for you or when I get back later I will wade through the stream of posts and place it up here just for your good self to peruse :ok:
many Cirrus instructors and clubs are wanting the chute to be used as a SOP for engine failure which is not approved by Cirrus or conventional engine failure procedures. That maybe the right thing to do but in my book Cirrus should endorse it!

Just through intense and absolute interest how does my quote above contradict what i have said I stand by every word

Pace

Pace - now steady on, I posted last time what Cirrus have to say and this was discussed. While the wording has changed over the years effectively Cirrus simply say in the event of an engine failure it is for the pilot to assess whether or not a successful forced landing is an option and if it is not, use the chute. What else could they possibly say? Its obvious that you can neither force land an aircraft or land an aircraft under a chute with any absolute guarantee of a successful outcome. You would simply be opening yourself to the most ridiculous litigation were you to endorse the use of the chute in all circumstances.

Its really very little different from so called cross wind limits. the vast majority of manufacturers have shied awaiting from including a xwl in the POH because they know full well some pilots will fail at the demonstrated limit and some will be successful in much greater xw. What do you want them to do? If they say the aircraft is safe to land with a 25 knot cross wind component and the pilot gives it a go and rolls the aircraft is it the manufacturers fault? Just as with the chute some will enjoy a successful outcome, and some will not - the only difference is the success of the chute is in the hands of the Gods the success of the landing is in the pilots hands, albeit not to the same extent with an off airport landing.

You want certainty, when there cant be certainty, any more than there cant be certainty every time we get into the cockpit of a SEP that the engine will not quit on us or the driver of the coach wont have a heart attack on the motorway.

Fuji

I think the above is the Cirrus recommendations? I note they say Cap Deployment MAYBE required
So basically Cirrus recommend a conventional forced landing and only if one is not possible or advisable to consider the use of the chute.
So Cirrus are cautious about even telling pilots to use the chute by adding the word MAYBE.

That is very different to what Pilots like 007 are contemplating which is to use the chute in ALL cases of engine failure as a SOP.
That idea is being heralded by instructors and various Cirrus clubs with no backup from the manufacturer.

It may or may not be the right thing to do using the chute in all engine failure situations but on whos advice?
That would indeed be a departure from conventional training and procedures for engine failure in a SEP? As such it should be approved by either the CAA or Cirrus not a concocted home made procedure by certain instructors off their own bat!

I am convinced with the chute and the aircraft but feel there should be more official guidance on its use.
Fuji I am sure you understand what I am getting at here?
Cirrus are happy to endorse a conventional forced landing but not one with the chute they leave that in your court!

Cirrus would be open to equal litigation telling you to force land as telling you to use the chute for engine failure

Pace

Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle. Only the pilot can weigh in the balance his currency and skill against the available sites against the risks of the chute. Surely you arent seeking to have cirrus alleviate the pilot of making that assessment nor could you unless you could demonstrate the chute would always produce a better outcome.

As i said earlier you are arguing for certainty where there can be done. You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give. Based on the evidence they may well in time be able to say on average the chute is always likely to give a better outcome but even that is not the certainty you are seeking. Pohs can be wrong (i had an incident which resulted in the poh being changed), pohs evolve, pohs have plenty of instances were you run the flow chart but ultimately can run out of options - the pilot is left to make the decision.

Pace

In your last few posts you seem to be very caught up in conventual v unconventional forced landing.

Just remember conventual is only conventual because no parachute was widely available before the Cirrus came along!

If all air raft ad chutes available then conventual forced landings might be something else!

Fuji

The above is a quote from 007Helicopter who states he will not consider a forced landing only the chute in any circumstances and this is an idea doing the rounds!

007Helicopter and others maybe correct but this is way away from conventional teaching and procedures for engine failure and if it is to be used in all scenarios the idea and new training needs to be endorsed by the CAA or Cirrus

Of course they can give guidance! If I get a problem in the Jet I fly i go instantly to the emergency handbook or the manual! If Cessna can do it with their Citation how come Cirrus cannot?



Pace

Pace 007 must answer for himself. Cirrus are not and cannot endorse a pull in every situation nor should a current pilot mindlessly pull if the engine fails downwind unless he feels unable to recover to the runway, given in almost any wind the chute can only result in an off airport landing.

I think copa are moving towards pilots pulling in the vast majority of cases but i dont see where this requires the caas involvement. Where is the evidence that current practise is unsafe - in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary.

I do however take your point that perhaps it could be argued the chute is as much a variance as glass so the pilot should require an endorsement that he has had chute training - my concern is where is the evidence of a need for this training. Would we end up with regulation for regulation sake yet again!

Pace with regard to guidance you know that is not what i said. I said cirrus cant give certainty. They already give guidance. What you seem not to like is that when you flow chart the problem the final box neither says pull the handle or land in a field. It says weigh the risks and make your own decision. It could not possibly say anything else.

The Cirrus is a general aviation plane flown mostly by amateur pilots like myself. Each of us has his own true talent, his own currency and his own perceptions each day. We're not all going to fly like the best or the worst of us so there will not be a policy that fits all of us, all the regulatory bodies and all the liability lawyers. Why expect or seek it?

I know of only a couple situations in which I would cede my control to the chute, but I fly about 150 hours per year. Why should someone who flies more (or less) than I be stuck with only one policy? A pilot who flies a Cirrus 400 or more hours per year may be very confident in his ability to regain his SA at 1000 feet AGL with a sudden emergency (is this confidence or arrogance?). Someone with 50 will have a very different experience set from which to make his decision.

The Columbia is a better plane than the Cirrus but does not achieve anything like the sales figure of the Cirrus.
They would be well advised to follow suit and offer a built in chute system!
I am sure I read that fatalities in Cirrus occur where the chute is not pulled so it may well be the case that pilots are advised to use the chute in most circumstances and that 007 is right in his thinking?i do think the concept of a parachute lowering the complete aircraft and its occupants to the ground is a breakthrough safety advancement and evidence seems to suggest that the system is reliable.
It would be interesting to compare deaths in cirrus aircraft to conventional aircraft and analyse the nature of the accidents where a chute pull would have reduced those death rates as then there may emerge a clearer pull or no pull policy
It would also be interesting to know of the deployed aircraft how many have been repaired and brought back into service rather than being totalled?

Pace

My concern would be how well a repaired airframe would cope in the event of a second 'chute pull.

Totaly wrong assesment !
 

At the start of this thead Mad Jock says that the airframe is a write off, I totaly disagree, there is nothing on that video that would indicate that the aircraft could not be repaired.

The post above asks about the ability of composite repairs to withstand the stress of a parachute deployment, that is simple to answer, a properly carried out composite repair will react in exactly the same way as a new aircraft.

Pace
I know of one aircraft this side of the pond that had a chute deployment....I was flying it a few weeks back!

A C

That is encouraging to hear as if deployment does become recommended for use on situations where the aircraft is still flyable ie engine failure, fuel starvation etc rather than a conventional forced landing then the increased incidents of chute deployments will not have such an impact on future insurance! Costs which total write offs would!

Pace

Ok, yes I do have pretty much as Pace describes a SOP that means in the event of all off airport landings onto an unknown surface I have chosen to use the Chute, because in my personal opinion I have a better chance of living to tell the tale.

When 4 + years ago I did my transition from then a Turbo Arrow to the Cirrus I was very much a fly it to the ground sort of guy and assumed the chute was the last resort in the event of mid air, engine failure in solid IMC or at night etc and this pretty much stayed with me for several years, so I fully understand the arguments against the chute and the preference for a fly it to the scene of the accident type approach.

The last couple of years and after 400+ Cirrus hours I have now changed my mind completely, and I fully admit being influenced by attending 3 x CPPP's (Cirrus specific training weekends organised by COPA) also by learning a lot from other Cirrus and COPA members and flying with some of the top (IMHO) Cirrus Instructors, and have now formed my own choice that suits me as an amateur pilot of average ability.

I am also very happy to publicly debate this as I believe the chute is largely misunderstood as a gimmick or an aid for incompetent bafoons who can not be bothered to get proper training and charge of into IMC knowing if it goes wrong, never mind , just pull the Chute. A good debate may even motivate some existing Cirrus (or other BRS equipped aircraft) to reconsider their own SOP.

Agreed, I know at least 6 of the total 37 Cirrus Caps pulls that are flying again today with very happy new owners, there may be more.

I am told the costs for the repairs have varied from $80K - $160K USD which insurers are very happy about compared to massive litigation costs which has happened in quite a few Cirrus fatal's.

Fuji I recall but may be wrong from a previous thread you made the very valid point that at a 1000ft in unknown territory who can really be certain on the condition of a landing site, whats looks great at 1000ft may be horrible at 100ft and then it is to late, hazards such as ditches, unseen wires, crops, ploughed fields, rocks, gradient, wet boggy ground (especially this year) coming up short, over shooting etc may all be factors that end up killing an average type of guy.

When I drive around the UK there is not that many spots I would like to land my Cirrus at 60+ knots on its tiny wheels and relative high inertia.

Maybe in complete random situations it would work for me in good weather maybe 8 or 9 out of 10 times, I just prefer my odds with the chute and have a pre determined plan before I even take off.

Having had some experience of the cost and complexity of composite repairs I am amazed that the repair cost is so low. The AC in the video has significant wing root damage from the wheel spat, the U/C is delaminated and that illustrates the stresses involved. The engine will require a shock load strip down and new prop, and thats only what is visible in the video.

With the chute deployed what is the vertical descent rate?

I have heard some stories of back injuries due to the deceleration

007helicopter - so you might like to give us an indication of when you would not pull the cute?

Here are some possible examples:

1. Downwind in the circuit. Obviously a chute pull will result in an off airport landing (assuming the wind is not at right angles to the down wind leg in the direction of the field). Lets assume the circuit is not sufficiently wide that you wouldn't expect to make the runway.

2. In the climb out from L2K - you will probably be at 1,000 feet or so over the beach or just beyond. The tide is out and the beach presents left and right.

3. South of the downs 4,000 feet - plenty of very large grass fields to choose from - no good reason to think any of the fields present hazards.

4. Over the Alps - some valley landing sites available, or "fly" the aircraft to a chute pull with the expectation of landing in a valley, or just pull the chute and end up where it takes you.

5. Over a built up area interspersed with some larger areas of parkland at 2,500 feet.

6. Over the Scottish highlands with very mixed terrain and no obviously clean landing sites.

7. In the winter over lots of muddy and evidently ploughed fields or fields with winter standing crops.

FA - Good points, even with small wheels and 60kts, Points 1 to 5 shout out for an attempt at an off airfield landing

Just what I was told by someone who I believe knows the facts, bear in mind appx 30 may not have been economically repairable.

17knots is the speed, not sure exactly in ft/min but can check

from the 37 I only recall one serious back injury (but may be wrong) he I believe cracked a vertebrae on a water landing, i think the Hudson North of NYC, however he was still able to swim to the shore unaided and 6 months later was fully recovered and able to snow board.

The last one on water was Dick Mcglaughin in the Bahams after engine failure, no back problems and a great blog here if you have time Early Reflections on CAPS Pull #32 by Dick McGlaughlin in the Bahamas - Pull early, pull often! - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

28.69ft per second, that is a pretty heavy deceleration,

007
I did say that. I also refer you to my post a couple up with regards your SOP.

Reasonable medium or big Airport read Lydd / or Manston, yes I would in most circumstances expect and be able to land on the runway.

My home airport Rochester which I know very well and the approaches are awful in the event of coming up short I would in fact pull the chute and hope to come here to pick up the criticism (and hopefully eat dinner at home that night)

Good one and I have considered this one specifically several times this year, the beech if empty would be very tempting but I have in fact decided I would likely still pull the chute but this is one of the tougher decision's, again maximum criticism expected from pprune.

I would pull the Chute

I would aim to manoeuvre to what I considered the best area with prevailing winds and pull the chute.

In fact assuming for some reason I could not glide clear, which happens I would pull the chute because a) more likely I would survive and b) less impact and damage to whatever I hit on the ground at 17kt vertical than 60+ knot horizontal. Or if possible try and arrive with the chute over the parkland which I accept pretty tricky. I know at least 2 CAPS pull over built up areas and I accept this is a highly hypothetical scenario but this is the best answer I can give from the arm chair.

Pull the chute, why wouldn't you?

Pull the chute

May well be but so far has worked with 100% success rate when used within limitations - that is good enough for me.

However I do accept 37 is a small number and one fatality will skew the results.

Refresh my memory 007 - exactly why was the chute fitted to enable certification?

To help - a clue: SPINNING

Not as a get out of trouble at all stages of flight card...

True, one factor was it did reduce certification costs because it meant full spin testing was not required, fair point.

That does not mean the Cirrus does not spin and recover from spinning pretty much like most other GA aircraft, but I accept it did reduce the costs and the time involved in getting certified.

That's an interesting observation. Please tell us more about your experiences spinning aircraft and how you have arrived at that conclusion?

Have you ever spun the SR22 or variants?

If the aircraft exhibited normal spin charecteristics why not get it fully certified without the extra cost and payload of a ballistic chute?

Its interesting to see what others have wrote about the SR22 and spins:

Based on my own experiences and what others have written I doubt you have ever entered a spin in the SR22...

Indeed the NTSB attributes several fatalities to stall/spin scenarios.

To quote a website in 2009:

Just to remove any doubt, I am not knocking the Cirrus, its a fantastic aircraft but it does require care in its handling, it has nasty parts of its flight envelope that you do not want to enter and the chute does not exempt the pilot from stupidity....

I have never spun a Cirrus.


However I am not sure your appraisal is entirely complete.


So while limited, the Cirrus has been spun, and in every one of these cases the test pilot recovered within one turn. The conclusion was that while recovery cannot be assured in all circumstances the spin characteristics are not exceptional BUT equally the recovery technique is not typical of types used for spin training.



Personally given the spin training undertaken by most pilots I doubt many would do that good a job of recovering any aircraft from a fully developed spin. When I started flying aerobatics I will happily admit that I had very little idea what the h*** was going on and found the whole experience quite disconcerting.


Without training (and I don't mean having a couple of spins demonstrated to you in the distance past of your PPL training) I think spins should be avoided at all cost. With proper training I suspect most pilots would do no worse and no better a job of recovering a Cirrus. (but I have no assured basis for making that assertion other than reading Cirrus's report referred to above).

Would I intentionally spin a Cirrus - hell no, its not certified for spinning, would I attempt to recover from a spin, yes if I had sufficient height I would, but I have to admit I cant recall whether chute deployment is thought to be in any way possibly compromised from a fully developed flat spin. I must check.

You have quoted some one here as if it is fact, Just wondered who because it is totally inaccurate?

No I have never spun a Cirrus or any other aircraft, the Cirrus was extensively spin tested to meet european standards and is it it one of the misquoted old wife's tales that it will not recover from a spin.

My 2 cents

-I have little respect for those who imply that "real" pilots don't pull the chute and instead should do some hero piloting shy*te to safely land the plane. I find it troubling that these people seem to think that death for not only the pilot, but also his/her unfortunate passengers, is an acceptable result for a pilot making a some bad decisions and/or demonstrating a skill deficit. There absolutely have been some instances where the chute saved the pilot from themselves, but the bottom line is in virtually every case the pilot and the passengers walked away. GA has enough fatal accidents already and the Cirrus parachute system has demonstrably and conclusively saved lives.

-The problem with the Cirrus is that after people spend a half a million plus dollars on their airplane they want to use it to get from A to B all the time, not just the good weather days. While Cirrus and COPA have worked hard to improve the training of Cirrus pilots the fact remains the PPL course and the FAA PPL IR doesn't do a very good job of preparing one for real world A to B flying in a technologically complex aircraft. Effectively using the fitted advanced Avionics in this aircraft also requires strong system knowledge and a very disciplined SOP driven methodology. Flight training in general is still stuck in the 1950's and needs to get with the program.

007 - Sadly I think there are hints within your posts of a lack of understanding of the issues with respect to the Cirrus. Without doubt its a great aeroplane, its fast, flies great and certainly does the job incredibly well. However it does require a different approach to its operation than say a typical Arrow or Rockwell Commander. This is due to its slippery nature, the control feedback and its integrated systems.

You seem to be under the impression that its spin charecteristics are typical of GA aircraft and are fully certified within EASA. They are not, a quick study of the type approval draws attention to some special conditions with regards spinning.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...3-30012012.pdf

You asked about my quote, put the text of my quote into Goggle and you will find the full article.

What BPA said is a very good summary of the BRS system and its advantadges, however one does have to ask if it lulls some pilots into taking to the air in conditions that they would not have considered in an aircraft not equipped with the BRS.

With respect to the spin, its a recognised problem that if you slow down, turn sharply and push the Cirrus it will bite you, people have died because of exactly that. It's an aircraft that inspires confidence due to having the BRS fitted, however does it inspire too much confidence that it will get you out of every adverse situation?

It was interesting reading the comments of 007 regarding the listed failiure situations and in which ones he would have pulled the handle.

GEP, what I took exception to was your inaccurate copy and paste of a statement that suggested the Cirrus was virtually impossible to recover from a spin, this I think was misleading and inaccurate and may have shown a certain lack of understanding on your own side.

I am not knowledgeable or experienced on spinning and should I or anyone else find themselves in a spin in a Cirrus then their piloting skills have already failed them and they are likely to be incompetent to recover, in this case I would recommend the chute as the best option.

Regarding my lack of understanding of issues with the Cirrus you are entitled to be sad about that, I am just a average PPL and Cirrus owner who takes a reasonable interest and care in trying to understand why people kill themselves in this and other aircraft and find strategies that work for me that reduce this risk.

Yes I could not agree more, as it will in many other aircraft types, the higher the performance generally the less forgiving to incorrect Pilot inputs. This in my observations is a factor in some Cirrus fatal's, typically in base to final turn at around 1000ft agl, the pilot has the wrong speeds, wrong inputs, stalls, spins and dies, the chute in this approach phase of flight is worthless.

GEP, you stated the following:
Yet, in the EASA certification a SR20 was spun 60 times, each time was recovered, not using a specific spin recovery device, but just control inputs.
Can you elucidate on this discrepancy?

GEP, another one:
Sure, but this is also true for many other planes. Why do you limit that to the Cirrus? What is it what you really want to say?