SR-22 parachute finally saves a pilot

That and when people decide to use it as it should be used. Not "oh crap we just flew past Vne, pull the chute!"
Firefighters were busy cleaning up as much as 140 gallons of fuel
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
I fly corporate in a Cirrus and also a CSIP instructor who train our local area Cirrus pilots, and I take a lot of heat from other pilots, (I'm a robot, a button pusher, a dangerous doctor killer, I take dangerous risks because I have the parachute etc etc.) I fly mostly in the Rocky mountains, and it is a comfort to know you have the parachute! I remember them long nights flying over the mountains looking out the window and seeing nothing in the darkness except the looming peaks knowing full well if I had an engine failure I was dead. I'm glad them days are mostly over.

Also If you subscribed to the Cirrus Magazine, you would be amazed how many lives the chute saved. I get lectures all the time from other pilots who tell me they would not pull the chute if the engine failed, and I FULLY agree! The chute is another option, not the only option! More options are better, especially at night in a single. I know its not as good as a twin, but the chute is almost like having another engine (comfort wise) Not many twins can fly at 200 knots at 15 GPH
 
[yt]JXQKaxp6Rlk[/yt]


The chutes do work.


Curious, did Cirrus come out with an STC to fix the aircraft after a chute deployment? Someone told me this, but I don't see why anyone would want to do that considering the repairs would probably be worth more than the aircraft.
 
WacoFan said:
Only thing I can think of is perhaps the Cessna was towing a banner or a glider and the airplane got tangled?
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

He hit the rope that was hanging behind a glider towplane. It was on one of those TV shows a few years ago.
 
Fly_Unity said:
I fly corporate in a Cirrus and also a CSIP instructor who train our local area Cirrus pilots, and I take a lot of heat from other pilots, (I'm a robot, a button pusher, a dangerous doctor killer, I take dangerous risks because I have the parachute etc etc.) I fly mostly in the Rocky mountains, and it is a comfort to know you have the parachute! I remember them long nights flying over the mountains looking out the window and seeing nothing in the darkness except the looming peaks knowing full well if I had an engine failure I was dead. I'm glad them days are mostly over.

Also If you subscribed to the Cirrus Magazine, you would be amazed how many lives the chute saved. I get lectures all the time from other pilots who tell me they would not pull the chute if the engine failed, and I FULLY agree! The chute is another option, not the only option! More options are better, especially at night in a single. I know its not as good as a twin, but the chute is almost like having another engine (comfort wise) Not many twins can fly at 200 knots at 15 GPH
Click to expand...

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! ;)
 
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...

Who knows... a lot of the comments that I hear around the airport are that Cirrus drivers are typically low time pilots with the ink still wet on the instrument ticket, high perf etc. They push their limits because they feel the chute is their crutch if something goes wrong. Which in turn impedes their decision making--perhaps a pilot without a chute wouldn't have made the same decisions that a pilot with a chute would.
 
Maurus said:
Curious, did Cirrus come out with an STC to fix the aircraft after a chute deployment? Someone told me this, but I don't see why anyone would want to do that considering the repairs would probably be worth more than the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Found this forum discussion while researching this recent Cirrus parachute activation. Joined the forum to provide a bit of insight from the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association safety viewpoint.

As to fixing aircraft after a chute deployment, at least 3 airplanes have been repaired and flew again. Depends on the damage. Breaking off the tail seems like a no-fix situation, as does submerging in water for 24 hours. But landing in a walnut grove resulted in that airplane being repaired, sold to a friend of the pilot's who is happily flying it for the past 3 years.

Cost estimates for these repairs range from $80,000 to $120,000 depending upon the damage history. Insurance companies seem willing to assess each on its merits.

Cheers
Rick
-----
Safety Liaison and CPPP Chair
Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
http://www.cirruspilots.org/
 
PilotBeckfizzle said:
Who knows... a lot of the comments that I hear around the airport are that Cirrus drivers are typically low time pilots with the ink still wet on the instrument ticket, high perf etc. They push their limits because they feel the chute is their crutch if something goes wrong. Which in turn impedes their decision making--perhaps a pilot without a chute wouldn't have made the same decisions that a pilot with a chute would.
Click to expand...
For sure, decision-making causes appears in almost all of the Cirrus fatal accident reports. But that is no different than other new airplane types nor for the general aviation fleet. It's not the planes, it's us.

What surprised me was that 60% of the Cirrus fatal accidents involved pilots with more than 400 hours of total time and pilots with CFI, commercial or instrument ratings. Only 10% had less than 250 hours total time.

Sure, low time-in-type would be expected, since every new Cirrus owner starts at zero.

But "ink still wet" pilots are not the ones who crash most Cirrus aircraft. Go figure.

Cheers
Rick
------
Safety Liaison and CPPP Chair
Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
http://www.cirruspilots.org/
 
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...
 
BillH said:
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top