Cirrus down.. all is good.

I've always believed that if the airplane fails me, I'm doing whatever I have to in order to get out alive. I could care less about bending metal at that point. If pulling the chute is the best option for survival, than I'm pulling it. Forget the airframe, that's what insurance is for. Glad everyone walked away.
 
Is that a flap under the wing?

0329.n.aep_.plane__0.jpg
'
 
Mark815 said:
I've always believed that if the airplane fails me, I'm doing whatever I have to in order to get out alive. I could care less about bending metal at that point. If pulling the chute is the best option for survival, than I'm pulling it. Forget the airframe, that's what insurance is for. Glad everyone walked away.
Click to expand...
(1) Protect the public.
(2) Protect the passengers.
(3) Protect the crew.
(4) Protect the airframe.

In that order.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Sad how people take the easy way out and deploy the chute. What happened to being pilots?
Click to expand...


Being a guy who used to hate Cirrus, and now fly's one almost every day, I can see the ignorance of your post. Why would you not want to pull the chute? Chances are, in an off airport landing, the airplane WILL be bought by the insurance company. Not to mention that the majority of off airport landings end in injury/fatality. I hope this doesn't bring up any sting for any one, but look at Ben's accident. Had he been in a Cirrus, or something equiped with a chute, I think the outcome would have been different. The statistics are there if you just look for them. Remember, this is from a former Cirrus hater. Just do some searching through my history, and you'll see. Education is the cure for ignorance.

Lets look at what happened here as well. The engine was having trouble. There was no runway within resonable distance. The thickness of the ice was uncertian because last year at this time it was gone. So attempting a landing in uncertian conditions, that you have no clue if the ice will support the airplane at a forward speen of 65-75 knots and possibly going through the ice at that speed, or descending under chute, I pick the chute because it's going to give me the best chance of survival. And that's what the chute is all about. Giving you the best chance of survival. Airplane be damned. If I ever have an issue in an airplane with a chute, I'm going to fly it over the field I would land in if I had no chite, and pull. Flying airplanes is not about saving equipment in an emergency, it's about saving lives. There have been plenty of guys who should have pulled the chute, and didn't, and didn't make it. The outcome would have been different had they pulled. And there have been a few fatalities where the chute was pulled, but the majority were from pulls outside of the airplanes envelope, and outside of the chutes demonstrated capibilities. Operate anythinf outside of it's demonstrated limits, and you don't know whats going to happen.
 
Not trying to Monday morning quarterback, but it would be interesting to see the two outcomes of a power off landing vs. CAPS deployment on thin ice. It would be somewhat tricky to cushion a landing in the cirrus, meaning touchdown with minimal descent, without the use of power. On the other hand landing with the chute pulled is the equivalent of being dropped from 10 feet, but with not forward momentum.

Thoughts?
 
From what we know thus far I would probably would have chosen a power off landing. Although there are many variables in the decision making process and the pilot only had limited info and time to react.
 
Someone else said it was foggy that morning...deadstick over IFR is about the worst possible situation, and I'd pull a chute 100% of the time with that one.
 
NewYorkophile said:
Someone else said it was foggy that morning...deadstick over IFR is about the worst possible situation, and I'd pull a chute 100% of the time with that one.
Click to expand...

I'd want to know what the weather was during the accident but I agree, I'm pulling the chute if there's any kind of low IFR and no airport around.
 
What would you do if there wasn't a chute? Wouldn't you at least access all of your options first? The chute should be an absolute last resort, wouldn't you agree?
 
SeanD said:
What would you do if there wasnt a chute?
Click to expand...

Make the best choice with what you have?

I'm still trying to figure why the flap came detached and hanging from the wing. That to control might be a chute pull reason too. Glad pilot will be able to shed light on it so we all can learn.
 
Ok, so lets say there was fog at the airport. There is a procedure for those types of situations that doesn't require pulling a chute or wrecking the airplane.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
Make the best choice with what you have?
Click to expand...

I think that's the general rule in emergencies, regardless of the equipment you are flying. Cirri happen to have an additional piece of emergency equipment most airplanes don't. Yet people think you shouldn't use it because not every airplane has one? Like it's an unfair disadvantage?

I still don't understand, and probably never will, the uproar over this pilot using the chute. In this case, it saved the life of his family, against an otherwise uncertain outcome.

Given the positive ending to this accident, I'd say pulling the chute just might be the best decision the pilot made this day.
 
Given the temps over northern minnesota this time of year, and how thick the fog was, Icing? If that one has the TKS system then icing overwhelming it?
 
gotWXdagain said:
Given the temps over northern minnesota this time of year, and how thick the fog was, Icing? If that one has the TKS system then icing overwhelming it?
Click to expand...
This plane is FIKI equipped. I doubt it was being overwhelmed with ice.

Also, I'm glad the pilot deployed the chute. Probably did exactly as he was trained to do. Descending through 2000 AGL and not 100% certain of landing on a runway? Deploy the chute.

That's all I have to say about that.
 
I never got the "OMG he pulled the chute, bad pilot!" mentality. Hell, I wish I had a chute on the PC-12 or even the Navajo! Why not? It's one more tool in the box. What's wrong with saying, "if all else fails I have this last ditch effort to try." Would you say that "good pilots don't take off with autofeather on?" or that "good pilots don't even bother to feather the motor they just bring the ship in as is?" or that "good pilots don't carry a fire extinguisher, if the flame gets too hot, they'll just shoot themselves?" C'mon, your job is to make sure the airplane safely gets on the ground - this is one way to do that. If I lost an engine in a Cirrus, and wasn't 100% sure I was going to make a runway, I'd glide over someplace soft and pop silk every time.
 
ppragman said:
I never got the "OMG he pulled the chute, bad pilot!" mentality. Hell, I wish I had a chute on the PC-12 or even the Navajo! Why not? It's one more tool in the box. What's wrong with saying, "if all else fails I have this last ditch effort to try." Would you say that "good pilots don't take off with autofeather on?" or that "good pilots don't even bother to feather the motor they just bring the ship in as is?" or that "good pilots don't carry a fire extinguisher, if the flame gets too hot, they'll just shoot themselves?" C'mon, your job is to make sure the airplane safely gets on the ground - this is one way to do that. If I lost an engine in a Cirrus, and wasn't 100% sure I was going to make a runway, I'd glide over someplace soft and pop silk every time.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what the shoot is for. Honestly, I feel the same way now that I fly them. When I'm back in an airplane that has one engine, and no chute, I constantly look down and think to my self "none of these emergency landing sights are long enough, even if I hit the spot perfectly! I wish I had a chute." Like you say Pat, it's just another tool, why not use it. I took me a long time to think like that to. But after readings and seeing how many times it has saved people, and reading what people have said about using it, they are a HUGE success. Like airbags, people will eventually start to see the benefits of it. But it's still new. And pilots, typically type A personalities are afraid of new things and change. They will come around eventually.
 
jrh said:
This plane is FIKI equipped. I doubt it was being overwhelmed with ice.

Also, I'm glad the pilot deployed the chute. Probably did exactly as he was trained to do. Descending through 2000 AGL and not 100% certain of landing on a runway? Deploy the chute.

That's all I have to say about that.
Click to expand...

2000agl is the max at which Cirrus says you need BTW. At a recent audit, talking to the factory boys they say in straight and level flight you can pull as low as 500AGL. Our call outs have changed because of it. We now use "500 feet, CAPS, flaps and maps."
 
mshunter said:
2000agl is the max at which Cirrus says you need BTW. At a recent audit, talking to the factory boys they say in straight and level flight you can pull as low as 500AGL. Our call outs have changed because of it. We now use "500 feet, CAPS, flaps and maps."
Click to expand...

It's down to 500 now? Good! Last I heard was 900.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Sad how people take the easy way out and deploy the chute. What happened to being pilots?
Click to expand...
It's even more sad how many people DON'T pull the 'chute and end up dead when they could have been alive. I'd rather pull the 'chute, than try and "save the plane" . F that. My life is WAY more important than some carbon fiber, electronics, and a few fluids...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top