SR-22 parachute finally saves a pilot

jrh said:
Not meaning to hijack this thread, but I would advise against simulating engine failures by using the mixture in any piston singles unless you're within easy gliding distance of an airport.

I used to demo this to students until one day I saw a pilot taxi an old 152 in to a parking space, pull the mixture knob to cut the engine, and the whole knob came off in her hand.

I've also had enough trouble with vapor lock/underpriming/overpriming/etc. in light twins and bigger engines that I try to avoid shutting down engines in the air unless I need to (such as for training in twins).

The risks of something going wrong outweigh the benefits of a slightly more realistic engine failure training scenario, IMO.
Click to expand...
The prop windmilling, spins faster in the air than it does idling on the ground. Well the mixture knob coming all the way out, yeh... That would suck.
I only do it when I notice the student has a fear of leaning the engine, to prove a point.
 
Area 5150 said:
I've heard this before, but I guess I don't fully understand why Cirrus Pilots are, "Labled" in such a way, (Doctor Killer, Robot..etc). Do pilots who don't fly/own a Cirrus consider Cirrus pilots, "NON-Pilots" because they have the chute system? Is it a ego thing based on the pilots who fly other planes other than a Cirrus?

I'm all for the chute system as a option. According to the article, this guy made every attempt to return to the airport, but in the end his only option was to go for the chute. This story has a great outcome, because he walked away and lives to fly another day. (I'm sure the insurance compay isn't happy..........lol). I can understand that if you have some type of engine failure and you have alt, that you would continue to fly the plane to a safe landing area, however like you said, the chute is another option. But, it seems like everytime a story comes out like this, pilots or non Cirrus pilots seem to be the 1st to come out pointing fingers stating some type of negative propaganda about the plane or pilot of the Cirrus. I understand that Cirrus is a advanced airplane and alot of fatal crashes have occured with pilots who didn't have the hours or skills to handle a aircraft such as this. I've also heard that with the proper training, a Cirrus can be a great plane for a new pilot and a very forgiving aircraft to fly. Isn't the SR 20 more of the beginners airplane? I ask all these questions because I've never flown one or even been in one.

If I had the money I would love to be a Cirrus Owner, but I want to know why there is a love/hate relationship among pilots and the Cirrus.

Inform me guys! ;)
Click to expand...

Ive probably worked more Cirrus in the last 8 years than anyone can imagine. They are great to sequence. Pilots seem very capable. The test pilots will do anything you need them to. No Complaints about Cirrus, the plane or the pilots.
 
Area 5150 said:
I've heard this before, but I guess I don't fully understand why Cirrus Pilots are, "Labled" in such a way, (Doctor Killer, Robot..etc). Do pilots who don't fly/own a Cirrus consider Cirrus pilots, "NON-Pilots" because they have the chute system? Is it a ego thing based on the pilots who fly other planes other than a Cirrus?

Inform me guys! ;)
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, it seems like either a jelousy thing, or a desrie to fly low and slow(which Cirrus does not do to well). Think of it as the age old ford vs. chevy debate.

Most people think there is to much automation in a Cirrus. I personally like the fact that in a Cessna single (save the ill fated 172diesel) that the throttle still has a cable. Anyone ever hear of the DA42 AD for the seperate power source for the engine ECU's? Apperantly if you had to jump start the thing, when the gear comes up, the ECU's see a drop in voltage, and go into a sort of "self protection mode." This equals engines shutting down. Dead battries = no restart = a gear halfway up/down landing. I'd rather have a magneato and a cable. Not a sensor that can fail w/out warning. At least if you go to pul the power back on a cable and it breaks, you still have power. And the FADEC on the Eclipse, another AD out on that one too for the throttle position sensors going all whacky, and returning to idle power intermittently.
 
BillH said:
The prop windmilling, spins faster in the air than it does idling on the ground.
Click to expand...

That's what I said until I did it once in a Cessna 150 with a small prop (very low inertia) and it came to a stop, even when gliding well above best glide speed. Good thing the starter motor didn't pick that moment to crap out as well.
 
BillH said:
A cirrus pilot is no more guilty of being a push button pilot than any number of jet pilots.
The Bonanza was also labeled a DR Killer as well... Some people can make better decisions under pressure than others, total time is not a good indication of that.
I find that people who are very mechanically inclined and know systems like the back of their hands are most able to make good decisions in regards to situations where mechanical and or structural integrity has been affected. People who are pathetically weak on systems and how things work should not be making the decision to pull that handle. They always panic first and react on emotion rather than logic. Like the time I had a student flip out on me in a middle of a flight when I pulled the mixture all the way back. He acted like I was trying to kill him... No common sense...
Click to expand...

*rolls eyes* TT isn't an indication of decision making? Well at some point the old pilot outlived the bold pilot didn't (s)he?

In my experience some of the most dangerous guys are the ones who are system nuts, but for different reasons. I think it's possible that a systems nut would make a better decision on when to pull the chute. I think it is more likely any average pilot, with average systems knowledge, who has been trained and continued his/her education afterwards is going to beat both of your examples above at decision making 90% of the time.

Instead of attacking I'm suppose to be educating so here goes.

The reason the Bonanza was a DR killer had to do with the V-tails coming off the back of the tail because pilots would overspeed the aircraft and pull up to slow down. After a number of add-ons, and later an STC, the problem was corrected structurally (if you've ever seen the cuffs). Bonanza's still went down after the tail was corrected. I don't know if the NTSB ever correlated time and experience but the another group sure has. Insurance companies have, for decades, required all owners to get time with a special instructor for the bonanza because of the types of pilots it attracts. I've heard mostly the 25 hour number thrown around, but that is only if you get signed off by him/her. If you want to fly it low time with no experience you can pay outrageous fee's. Low time, more money than brains, weekend warriors were the ones who were plowing these things in, with or without the "DR killer STC", and they will continue to. The only solution the insurance companies have found (unless you have +500 hours high performance complex) is an intense course with an insurance qualified instructor, who will pound emergency after emergency on you. That seems to be the only thing that helps these guys who buy more plane than they can handle. In time I feel insurance companies will require something similar on the Cirrus, if they haven't already. We will need a few more dead Cirrus pilots first, and we haven't slowed much finding them. If gas prices keep going up that'll help stagnate the numbers, because less of them will fly.

If you've ever sat through a sales presentation with a cirrus vendor, as I have more times than I wanted to, they focus a lot of their marketing around the casual idiot. It reminds me of the days Cessna used to call their first ever tricycle aircraft "the airplane you can drive into the sky!". They do their best to dumb everything down.
"Carbon fiber, just like on a Ferrari" (So its super fast, way too expensive and I'll crash it!)
"All glass, just like jets and you know how safe jets are" (The DC-9 has glass?)
"Parachute for your safety!" (Just like the airlines, the best safety records, they all have parachutes right?)
"This one even has some ice add-ons that will get you out of trouble if you get caught in a little ice" (Wow! it is certified right? No? Oh, thats weird.)
"Just imagine hoping out of your Mercedes and into this leather coated machine" (Ah, flying a plane is JUST LIKE driving a car! SWEET!)

By the way, the carbon fiber means its an electrical nightmare. For instance, the first incarnation of the Cirrus flap's would extend every time you transmitted on the radio. If the radio's worked.
Jets are safe, generally, because they are flown by well trained pilots.
The parachute has attracted idiots who think they can goof around in the air and the parachute will save them.
The ice addons were originally to be certified, but they couldn't pass certification because they couldn't remove the ice. It was too expensive to redesign the thing, so they left it on the plane as a cost saving measure. The result? Unscrupulous salespeople have roped people in by lying about it's safety features. Well that might be unfair, it is possible the sales people have no idea the system is a failure. So they are either liars, or uneducated.
Continual associations between car's and planes trying to make this thing sound like a toy is ridiculous. These planes are not toys.
 
Cirrus has hands down the best GA marketing department out there. They have convinced a lot of people that have no business flying the things to do so. I think that's where the beef is. 90+% of cirrus pilots are smart, know what is going on, and know their and the planes limitations and respect them. Its the less than 10% of the pilots that make the stereotype and give all cirrus pilots a bad rap. The % of "idiots" might be higher in the cirruses, and the fact that they have made 3000 of the things in the past 10 years, means there are going to be some bad apples. Just as there are bad apples that fly 172's there are bad apples that fly cirruses.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I hear it does a nice job on Manhattan condo buildings too. :)
Click to expand...

I personally have not tested that theory. All I know is that 1500 MSL will clear all but Cadillac down on the island within 25 miles of the coast. Stuff goes by fast at 500 AGL and 200 kts. Granted you burn 27 gph at SL at full power buuuuttt......
 
OldTownPilot said:
Cirrus has hands down the best GA marketing department out there. They have convinced a lot of people that have no business flying the things to do so. I think that's where the beef is. 90+% of cirrus pilots are smart, know what is going on, and know their and the planes limitations and respect them. Its the less than 10% of the pilots that make the stereotype and give all cirrus pilots a bad rap. The % of "idiots" might be higher in the cirruses, and the fact that they have made 3000 of the things in the past 10 years, means there are going to be some bad apples. Just as there are bad apples that fly 172's there are bad apples that fly cirruses.
Click to expand...

You are still in the GA world so I'll have to differ to your experience.
Years back when I was instructing and I had guys wanting to go buy one I found their sales department completely unscrupulous as i posted above.
 
OldTownPilot said:
I personally have not tested that theory. All I know is that 1500 MSL will clear all but Cadillac down on the island within 25 miles of the coast. Stuff goes by fast at 500 AGL and 200 kts. Granted you burn 27 gph at SL at full power buuuuttt......
Click to expand...

Used to take a Superviking around the island doing the same thing on weekends. I think the IO-520 was chewing down something close to 27gph. If you've got the money to burn it is a great way to spend an afternoon in maine.
 
jynxyjoe said:
*rolls eyes* TT isn't an indication of decision making? Well at some point the old pilot outlived the bold pilot didn't (s)he?

.
Click to expand...

It depends. Generally speaking, that's assumed to be true..more time, more exposure. But other items like type and quality of that TT do figure in too, if you really want to gnats-ass it. That's the difference between the freight dog with a good number of hours, and the weekend warrior with the same. FD may have only been flying for 6 years, weekender for 13 or so. Hours vs experience depends in large part on quality of that time, not necessarily direct exposure. But in similar types of operations, the TT idea could be true more often than not (ie FD vs FD).
 
I meant 'best' with respect to the company, and how they can convince people to buy the darn things. Most honest from the consumer standpoint...hell no.
 
jynxyjoe said:
The reason the Bonanza was a DR killer had to do with the V-tails coming off the back of the tail because pilots would overspeed the aircraft and pull up to slow down. After a number of add-ons, and later an STC, the problem was corrected structurally (if you've ever seen the cuffs). Bonanza's still went down after the tail was corrected. I don't know if the NTSB ever correlated time and experience but the another group sure has. Insurance companies have, for decades, required all owners to get time with a special instructor for the bonanza because of the types of pilots it attracts. I've heard mostly the 25 hour number thrown around, but that is only if you get signed off by him/her. If you want to fly it low time with no experience you can pay outrageous fee's. Low time, more money than brains, weekend warriors were the ones who were plowing these things in, with or without the "DR killer STC", and they will continue to. The only solution the insurance companies have found (unless you have +500 hours high performance complex) is an intense course with an insurance qualified instructor, who will pound emergency after emergency on you. That seems to be the only thing that helps these guys who buy more plane than they can handle. In time I feel insurance companies will require something similar on the Cirrus, if they haven't already.
Click to expand...

Actually Cirrus does have a factory training program using certified CFIs, typically 8-15hrs flying for the initial training, including xc legs and some night flying. I hear that the ins. co's are actually going the other way and relaxing the requirement that you need to do annual training with a CSIP, not sure if this is affecting transition training yet or not.
I think a lot of the problem is that people want instant gratification, regardless of whether they jump into Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, etc. They expect that they can jump into a 300hp airplane with only a 1hr local checkout and go on their way, and any attempts by the CFI to give additional training above the bare minimum training are a rip off, unnecessary, CFI padding his/her wallet, etc. They never take the time to experience the airplane in travel mode ie 225kt groundspeed while staying ahead, configuring avionics, flying approaches, planning descent profiles, managing the engine, etc.
 
XLR99 said:
Actually Cirrus does have a factory training program using certified CFIs, typically 8-15hrs flying for the initial training, including xc legs and some night flying. I hear that the ins. co's are actually going the other way and relaxing the requirement that you need to do annual training with a CSIP, not sure if this is affecting transition training yet or not.
I think a lot of the problem is that people want instant gratification, regardless of whether they jump into Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, etc. They expect that they can jump into a 300hp airplane with only a 1hr local checkout and go on their way, and any attempts by the CFI to give additional training above the bare minimum training are a rip off, unnecessary, CFI padding his/her wallet, etc. They never take the time to experience the airplane in travel mode ie 225kt groundspeed while staying ahead, configuring avionics, flying approaches, planning descent profiles, managing the engine, etc.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks. I'd be interested to hear why the insurance company feels it needs to relax the CSIP requirement.
 
When a Cirrus sales/demo pilot landed out of low overcast skies, light drizzle and temperatures hovering around freezing, then taxied onto a ramp full of corporate jets laden with icicles hanging from the wings, I lost all respect for the company and their kool-aid serving culture. When the same sales/demo pilot did the same thing again the next day, I wanted to ask him what kind of image he was trying to portray. I'm trying to run a safety-minded flight department here, and my boss was standing there with a look that said "if he can do it, why can't you?" Thanks Cirrus, you're all true professionals that really do care about your sheep, I mean customers, arriving safely.

The first time I saw an ad on the inside cover of an "elitist" magazine in the FBO, I knew what kind of company Cirrus was. What is the need of claiming that a Cirrus has "four first class airline seats"? Makes me think I don't have to do any work when I'm flying along in that thing. After all, if I'm in a first class airline seat, there are those two monkeys on the other side of that steel door that do everything for me. They're out to get that rich man that has to arrive in style (its a single engine airplane for Christ sake) but doesn't know jack splat about aircraft.

Cirrus can go to hell for all I care.
 
MikeD said:
It depends. Generally speaking, that's assumed to be true..more time, more exposure. But other items like type and quality of that TT do figure in too, if you really want to gnats-ass it. That's the difference between the freight dog with a good number of hours, and the weekend warrior with the same. FD may have only been flying for 6 years, weekender for 13 or so. Hours vs experience depends in large part on quality of that time, not necessarily direct exposure. But in similar types of operations, the TT idea could be true more often than not (ie FD vs FD).
Click to expand...

Well, using your post for the vocabulary, I thought we were just talking about similar types of operations. The bonanza post, at least to me, indicated we are talking about a private owner of a cirrus. One private owner versus another I think hours is a good way to judge their experience levels. I think you are getting into commercial pilots versus weekend warriors and that's in a whole other vein that doesn't have to do with the thread. If you want to include all pilots in the discussion we hijack the thread. Speaking about Cirrus owners only, the non commercial type, the more hours the better and the risker the pilot, the more likely he is to Darwin himself out of the picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top