Forth safe landing by a Cirrus SR22 via parachute

Another safe landing by a Cirrus in an emergency. I try to picture what the feeling must be like durring decent with a canopy above and the fan not turning but it seems it does work.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=0f6a8cf2-8600-46b7-9c5a-56b07e4886d1&

Ernie,

Note that one of those instances was in a case where the pilot was in "severe" turbulence over mountainous terrain. Got scared and pulled the rip cord.

Another was in a case where the pilot took off into forecast IMC, climbed to a couple thousand feet, discovered that it was, in fact, IMC, and pulled the cord.

At this rate, I'm guessing that no insurance company in their right mind will insure one of these things within a year.

Sorry, but "I hit a few bumps", or "Gee, it really was IMC" doesn't cut it in my book.

Now, in the first instance, the guy pulled the cord because an aileron came loose but not off the airplane. THAT, in my opinion, warrants a yank on the lanyard.

MTV

As I said, it must be an odd feeling going down by a parachute and in a way, I suspect many will tend to rely on that canopy on top when they should be worrying about their airmanship. I am not familiar with the
SR22 at all but it seems strange to me to give up on an aircraft at 13,000 foot due to a stall and while talking about that, why a stall at that altitude in the first place. When I was taking training in a J-3, my instructor had me go into a stall and lay it over in a spin and watched how I got out of it without saying anything. That was an experience for someone with only 5 hours total time and that was at 3000 foot more or less.

There is sure a lot of good reports on the SR22 though disregarding the pilots that fly them.

Reminds me of the guy in Az that bought a used car with cruise control and he immediately wrecked it. When the trooper asked him what happened, he simply said he put it on cruise control and crawled in the back seat to take a nap.

I'll never trust an airplane that comes with a built in chute.

Jerry Gaston said:

I'll never trust an airplane that comes with a built in chute.

Click to expand...

I suspect if a person really got in trouble in a Cub, they could crawl out on the wing struts and with a trusty old Swiss Army Knife, cut the fabric off on one wing, grab the corners and use it like a parasail. With my luck, I would hit the tail of course.

AlaskaAV said:

I suspect if a person really got in trouble in a Cub, they could crawl out on the wing struts and with a trusty old Swiss Army Knife, cut the fabric off on one wing, grab the corners and use it like a parasail. With my luck, I would hit the tail of course.

Click to expand...

Ernie, the US Army L-21 Super Cub manual has complete instructions on how to exit the aircraft in flight during an emergency with parachutes, both pilot and copilot.

Christina Young said:

AlaskaAV said:

I suspect if a person really got in trouble in a Cub, they could crawl out on the wing struts and with a trusty old Swiss Army Knife, cut the fabric off on one wing, grab the corners and use it like a parasail. With my luck, I would hit the tail of course.

Click to expand...

Ernie, the US Army L-21 Super Cub manual has complete instructions on how to exit the aircraft in flight during an emergency with parachutes, both pilot and copilot.

Click to expand...

But by using the wing fabric?
My dry humor poking through again Christina....

Had a good Minister friend of mine from Alb. NM lose his father a year or so ago in one of these machines. Flew into terrain just shy of Albuquerque on his way shuttling the Cirrus down from North Dakota for the winter. My friend just can't believe after all these years of doing this shuttle with various airplanes that his very conscientious father would have done this...so has a feeling there was an inflight failure prior to impact ...or too much faith in having the chute when all went to He....!

I can sure picture that thought. I even get concerned with big iron when the equipment will take an aircraft down almost to point of touchdown and on some airports with the right equipment on the ground and in the aircraft, it is automatic. If they loose the electronics, does the flight crew retrain the capability and continuity of manual landings in an emergency with the same capability without the day to day practice? Do they get to the point they trust the computers? Just like the last incident with the SR22, did he really have to give up the aircraft at 13,000 foot and shut it down? Granted he made it and at any point he could have fired off the chute but than he would have nothing especially if for some reason the engine cooled down enough it would not restart.

I my days with Wien, I suspect 75 percent or more would disengage the AP and fly the landing manual. Of course they were all bush pilots in their early days and that was the only way to fly. Granted things change but where does it go too far for the weekend pilots so to speak?

The last year my brother in Nebraska had his Cherokee 6, he only flew it some 10 hours. On his last trip from Auburn, NE to LAX, he was set up as number 49 to land at LAX among all the heavies. He made it, did his work and play, flew it back to Nebraska and immediately sold it. To make it safe, a person has to work at it for sure and if a person knows that parachute is in the back, will they keep up there proficiency for an emergency?

Does the Cirrus have some really bad spin recovery traits? One spun in near here last year.

aceherks said:

Does the Cirrus have some really bad spin recovery traits? One spun in near here last year.

Click to expand...

I have no info but maybe others might have some.

I don't know anything about the Cirrus aircraft, except they are by all accounts, pretty efficient aircraft.

That said, it really scares me that there are people out there who can afford a $400,000 airplane, and who may, just may, think that the parachute will take the place of pilot proficiency and training. Two of the accidents so far with parachute deployment certainly appear to be rich guys who flew into poor conditions, and instead of flying the airplane, opted to bail.

As I noted before, if a wing comes off the sucker in turbulence, fine, pull the dang cord. But if you hit a few bumps......??

Unfortunately, this will affect insurance rates and regulations for all of us.

MTV

The parachute concept would appeal to the same people who think gee whiz autopilots and avionics can replace their instrument flying skills and staying current.

j3jm said:

The parachute concept would appeal to the same people who think gee whiz autopilots and avionics can replace their instrument flying skills and staying current.

Click to expand...

That is what worries me about large commercial airlines in the world, even the US. Because of cost savings, management requires the aircraft be flown by computer clear up to point of touchdown because it saves on fuel and some percentage on maintenance. How does a flight crew keep the natural instinct sharp when needed to land in an emergency? As you say, I am sure it works the same with GA aircraft.

That is not correct, at 85 hours a month, we get more than enough "actual" stick time. As far as autoland, we are requested to perform one per month for aircraft certification. Although aircraft are much more automated than in the past, the idea that airline pilots just push buttons is widely misunderstood. And what would that have to do with cost?

j3jm said:

That is not correct, at 85 hours a month, we get more than enough "actual" stick time. As far as autoland, we are requested to perform one per month for aircraft certification. Although aircraft are much more automated than in the past, the idea that airline pilots just push buttons is widely misunderstood. And what would that have to do with cost?

Click to expand...

Hopefully not to cause an argument and I respect your ideas but out of 85 hours per month, you did not cite cycles which is what I was referring to although I did not state it as such. If a crew is flying say 10 flights of 8 hours each and and out of that, only one manually flown instrument landing by requirement, can a big iron crew keep sharp? It is understood that the flight crew can make an approach as they desire but there is always the pressure from management. I know, have been there. Since I have never flown anything like that, I only ask for information and I appreciate your comments. I know what our flight crews told me though. To make something work, a person has to practice and practice and not just once a month which would worry me on a commercial flight into remote hubs in Alaska in a 737 and I suppose in many other weather problem areas all over the world.
We learned that practice idea from the day we started flying if we had a good CFI.

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you, just suffice to say, staying current is not a concern. The airlines safety record over the last 10 years speaks for itself.

j3jm said:

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you, just suffice to say, staying current is not a concern. The airlines safety record over the last 10 years speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

Gee, I told myself I would never do this here but everyone breaks a promise I guess.

Needless to say, I know how safe aviation is, commercial or GA, and the record is fantastic. In miles traveled, aviation is safer than riding the Otis elevators. I might also add that at a certain point, an accident is waiting to happen to some.

"Staying current is not a concern"? I hope I misunderstood you J3jm. To say this about aviation piloting seems to me to be beyond belief. Almost everyone around here is trying to stay current no matter what equipment they fly or the subject.

What airline do you fly for so we can fly some other carrier.

come on, guy, stop trying to start something. I meant staying current is not a concern because we fly our asses off in every kind of weather and condition you can imagine. Ask me at the end of a 4 day trip if I feel current or not. I am signing off, I am not letting you piss me off anymore. adios

besides which, I am in my hotel room studying for my company annual checkrides the next 2 days. They (and maybe the FAA) will decide how current I am.

j3jm said:

come on, guy, stop trying to start something. I meant staying current is not a concern because we fly our asses off in every kind of weather and condition you can imagine. Ask me at the end of a 4 day trip if I feel current or not. I am signing off, I am not letting you piss me off anymore. adios

Click to expand...

A good idea J3jm. Please feel free to PM or e-mail me if you feel you would like to continue a friendly discussion. I for one, and am sure many others, have seen how you feel about flying but at the same time realize you don't fly into some rather rough areas such as the hubs of Alaska or other bush areas of the world.
Still, have a great trip on your next schedule. Appreciate your comments.

Everybody take a deep breath and relax...

sj

steve said:

Everybody take a deep breath and relax...

sj

Click to expand...

I was trying to move it over to PM or e-mail Steve. Sorry.

Staying current

Ernie I know what you are saying about automation and staying current. When I flew the 727 to almost all the large villages in Alaska all the flying except for cruse was done by hand. We even flew into Red Dog which was a gravel strip in the mountains NW of Kotzebue.
Now I fly a 747 200 all over the world which has the same basic instruments as the 727 had. I did go through training and was qualified on the 747 400 also, this airplane can do almost anything including land in 00 if you have to.
Most pilots? use the automation when the weather is down, no pilot can fly as well as the computer can.
When the weather is decent most pilots will hand fly the airplane, we all love to fly and the big one is a lot of fun to fly by hand.
As far as the company I have never been told not to fly the airplane by hand. Of course no one fly?s it by hand in cruise.
The training you go through is quite intense and it happens every 6 months.
So most pilots try to fly the airplane to stay as current as you can. Like I said the only time the airplane lands itself is when the weather is so bad you are required to use the automation. Other wise every one fights for a landing.
Ernie V

Re: Staying current

eviens said:

Ernie I know what you are saying about automation and staying current. When I flew the 727 to almost all the large villages in Alaska all the flying except for cruse was done by hand. We even flew into Red Dog which was a gravel strip in the mountains NW of Kotzebue.
Now I fly a 747 200 all over the world which has the same basic instruments as the 727 had. I did go through training and was qualified on the 747 400 also, this airplane can do almost anything including land in 00 if you have to.
Most pilots? use the automation when the weather is down, no pilot can fly as well as the computer can.
When the weather is decent most pilots will hand fly the airplane, we all love to fly and the big one is a lot of fun to fly by hand.
As far as the company I have never been told not to fly the airplane by hand. Of course no one fly?s it by hand in cruise.
The training you go through is quite intense and it happens every 6 months.
So most pilots try to fly the airplane to stay as current as you can. Like I said the only time the airplane lands itself is when the weather is so bad you are required to use the automation. Other wise every one fights for a landing.
Ernie V

Click to expand...

That was what I was trying to say in a way Ernie. The flight crew has to stay current to landing manual when needed and from a management viewpoint, I can understand why it is best to use the computers to do it when the chips were down weather wise but when the WX was good, make it a practice approach and at the same time, save the fuel for the company and do the training for the flight crews. To me, and you big iron guys can correct me, but it seems from what I learned, when you practice in VFR, it works when the chips are down and we all know that can happen.
Now days commercial aviation check flights are a different situation of course and I never sat up front when there was a company check pilot or FAA jump seat rider on board, only when flying into my assigned areas so the flight crews could tell me what they wanted to hear from me via company VHF other that what the control systems told them. Seems they trusted me more then the guys in the tower.

By the way Ernie, was your time with the 727 operation fun for you? They have a very good image all over the country but that operation happened after I left Alaska.
I am sure glad he made it work though. He was quite a guy to work with.

j3jm said:

The parachute concept would appeal to the same people who think gee whiz autopilots and avionics can replace their instrument flying skills and staying current.

Click to expand...

Back to the original topic, I want both. I want to be current and safe, and rely on skill rather than gizmos. But if the plane suffers a failure or I get buggered by a zippy little homebuilt in the pattern, What's wrong with having a way to avoid taking the short ride down? A BRS is just another tool. How that tool is employed (Or I guess in this case when it is deployed) depends on the proficiency and attitude of the pilot.

As an aside: One day after we got back to the station from a bad crash, we were talking about all of the safety equipment and technology that has been engineered into cars. The feeling of safety causes people to take risks they would otherwise be unwilling to take. One of the guys opined that if we put a big spike in the center of the steering wheel instead of an airbag, people would immediately become safer drivers.

mvivion said:

Unfortunately, this will affect insurance rates and regulations for all of us.

MTV

Click to expand...

Mike-

Although I agree with you on rich idiot pilots not being proficient in this airplane, the parachute ultimately can save money for the insurer.

I tend to think that any accident that does not need medical treatment would save the insurance company far more money than other outcomes. It is relatively cheap and easy to replace the airplane, impossible to replace people.

Tim

Tim,

You may be correct, and I hope so. The scary thing to me is the notion that people might actually substitute safety equipment for training and skill. And anyone who can plunk down nearly half a mil for a little airplane isn't going to wink at the deductable.

I'm with you and the others, that these things could be a wonderful safety advantage in an emergency.

That said, let's look at the "average" accident: It isn't wings coming off, in fact, structural failure (even in extreme turbulence) is almost unheard of. Yes, there are a few folks who lose control of aircraft in turbulence, but not that many.

Where to these category airplanes go astray? CFIT, controlled flight into terrain. A parachute isn't going to help a guy who flies his airplane into terrain because he was cheating on an instrument approach, or......

Don't get me wrong, though, the parachutes are a great idea. It's like a lot of other things: Airplanes are completely safe devices, until you introduce a human into the mix.

My point was simply that pulling the ripcord because you're in some turbulence (which was forecast) or because the weather conditions were as bad as forecast, and apparently beyond your flying skills, isn't acceptable to me.

If I were an insurance company, and a guy did one of those deals, I'd seriously think about trying to avoid payment in that he intentionally wrecked the airplane.

And, note that pulling the cord does NOT prevent severe damage to the airframe. They can be made to fly again, but it is not cheap.

MTV

As usual, I like your thoughts MTV.

I suppose if a person were over water and beyond deadstick glide path limits from land, the use of the chute would be a good idea if the engine was trashed. I suspect that type of landing would be much better than an uncontrolled ditching.

As long as an aircraft is in the air and with some altitude, there is always a chance to fire up the engine/engines again. Take our 737 out of Homer that lost both engines around 400 to 500 foot due to bird ingestion. Had the flight crew given up, they would have gone into some very cold water. At least they got one refired although the engine was damaged. Another time out of Fairbanks, an airline using a Convair 880 lost all four just after liftoff. This was due to such a rapid change in temperatures caused by an inversion, the automatic fuel control system could not keep up. Had that flight crew given up, it would have gone down within the city limits.
Granted the chute can be separated on the SR22, but would the pilot keep trying or just feel that the chute would take care of the landing?

Again, I am only thinking about the loss of an engine in flight due to a mechanical, not weather or pilot error.

Someone earlier mentioned does the airplane have bad spin tendencies? The answer is a long one. During certification, there is a certain matrix that the airplane has to be shown to demonstrate to be deemed spin resistant or spin recoverable. From what I have been told, so take that for what it is worth, the airplane does not like to spin and may not come out of a spin and the whole parachute thing helped them get through certification. I work for a dealer that sells both the Husky (easy now boys ) and Lancair aircraft. I can tell you all about the cert on the Lancair if you are interested. The Columbia 350 is cert. spin resistant and the 400 is recoverable. The 350 has a rudder limiter( among other things) to help keep you from getting there in the first place. Earlier this year, you could harldly find insurance anywhere for their airplanes. So far, Lancair has had no fatalities but we also do not have the same number of airplanes out there in the fleet. It is going to happen sooner or later because things just happen. MTV is also correct in the fact that there are a LOT of low time guys in these things, both Cirrus and Lancair, and they are flying an airplane that is WAY over their capabilites. I have instructed 13 people this year in their brand new airplanes and only 3 were instrument rated. Out of the VFR guys, the highest time pilot had 500 hours. Most were around 250 or less total time. (And yes, they are paying top dollar for insurance) They are flying what is basically a single engined Baron (and the 400 is faster than that. Just brought one home today that trues at 216 kts at 17K. Not bad for a fixed gear airplane) There are a few incidents that Cirrus has had that make me wonder if a more experienced pilot would have done the same thing in that circumstance. It is very easy to armchair quarterback but one has to wonder. I have also flown skydivers and have seen what turbulence can do to a chute and pulling that cord is the last thing I would want to do in that situation. Hell, just SLOW DOWN below Va and take what you get or make the proverbial 180 turn or something. All that fancy stuff is nice but when all else fails, the PIC has to remember to FLY THE AIRPLANE!

Sorry for the long post. I could rant about some of these folks all night.

Dave

Isn't it funny that people are saying, "well some more lives saved because of the parachute" when the plane couldn't recover from the spin... and when other airplanes are spun no one says, "well some more lives saved because of the rudder"?!