Pipistrel Virus pulls chute

[Happyflyer]

Hitting the ground at 45 knots (83 kph) descent rate may not be survivable. This site http://www.brsaerospace.com/faq.aspx says the descent rate is in the order of 21 ft/min which is about 13 knots a

I think you mean 21 ft/sec, a feather floats down faster than 21 ft/min.There would be shock absorption from the nose-down attitude too, the noseleg has some spring / collapsibility followed by the main gear flex, so the actual impact forces wouldn't be too bad. Works out to 23 km/h. You wouldn't be too concerned about hitting a fixed object in a car at that speed.

Thanks for that. You're right, I did mean 21 ft per second (13 knots).

 

 

[DrZoos]

36 km/h is the approx impact speed , however there is a huge difference between 36kmh vertical speed and horizontal speed, especially when sitting with no legs to absorb vertical decelleration.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

36 km/h is the approx impact speed , however there is a huge difference between 36kmh vertical speed and horizontal speed, especially when sitting with no legs to absorb vertical decelleration.

That's why Cirrus put so much effort into seat and undercarriage cushioning. It's not just a matter of fitting a chute.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Basic conversions: 1m/s = 2 kt = 200fpm.

 

What sort of gyros do the uncertified AHRS systems use? Casual googling suggests that they're rate gyros which are integrated and EKFed to get rid of drift etc.... how well would they work in an unusual attitude situation?

 

 

[DrZoos]

That's why Cirrus put so much effort into seat and undercarriage cushioning. It's not just a matter of fitting a chute.

For all of us without a $700,00k budget it is.......fit the chute and hope she works...in most cases its going to be significantly better than the alternative

 

 

[eightyknots]

For all of us without a $700,00k budget it is.......fit the chute and hope she works...in most cases its going to be significantly better than the alternative

The Cirrus is a very expensive aircraft beyond the reach of all but the financially endowed.

 

 

[kasper]

Correct Kasper,I flew my trikes for over 400 hrs before I fitted a chute, I had complete faith in my machine and abilities, but it is the unexpected things out of the blue you don't think about was the main reason i fitted one, very very close call with an Ibis and my leading edge one day and that changed my mind.

 

Cheap insurance for another shot at life if the thing was needed to save my bacon, I flew no different that I did previously once I fitted it.

 

Alf

Alf,

Yes, it indeed focuses the mind when you start flying an aircraft where the fabric IS the primary structure AND failure of the fabric will nearly always be terrifying if not deadly. I fly without a chute and accept that risk ... but have "worn out" three sails and not had to replace the frame inside - I have a very healthy respect for my sails and accept that if an external event hits me or the sail I am at risk.

 

 

[Oscar]

The Cirrus is a very expensive aircraft beyond the reach of all but the financially endowed.

The Cirrus was fitted with a BRS because it could not meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirements. Fairly much analogous with stating that a car can't meet the standard braking requirements, so it has extra airbags fitted so as not to cause - potentially - more injuries to its occupants than a car with an effective braking system.

 

Pig with lipstick.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The Cirrus was fitted with a BRS because it could not meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirements. Fairly much analogous with stating that a car can't meet the standard braking requirements, so it has extra airbags fitted so as not to cause - potentially - more injuries to its occupants than a car with an effective braking system.Pig with lipstick.

I've got a few hundred hours in Cirrus aircraft. It flies pretty well for a 'pig with lipstick'. Have you ever flown one? Cirrus had a design philosophy to fit a BRS system to each aircraft. They did not need or want to go thru all the time and expense and difficulty of full spin certification. Cirrus aircraft were recoverable from all spins but needed Cirrus specific control inputs by the test pilots. Their philosophy is, don't was time trying to recover, just pull the chute. This is especially true in this day and age where not many GA pilots are competent at spin recovery. See the article below. Also, in the US they like to sue, a lot.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwjin5XUl-LIAhWBg6YKHVgOBoc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cirruspilots.org%2Fcopa%2Fsafety_programs%2Fm%2Fcopa_safety%2F582392%2Fdownload.aspx&usg=AFQjCNG5xDcPJ5CVN73jRXGSKWCce36XgQ&sig2=5XU0hdTnvR7yabcq0DR78A

 

 

[Oscar]

I've got a few hundred hours in Cirrus aircraft. It flies pretty well for a 'pig with lipstick'. Have you ever flown one? Cirrus had a design philosophy to fit a BRS system to each aircraft. They did not need or want to go thru all the time and expense and difficulty of full spin certification. Cirrus aircraft were recoverable from all spins but needed Cirrus specific control inputs by the test pilots. Their philosophy is, don't was time trying to recover, just pull the chute. This is especially true in this day and age where not many GA pilots are competent at spin recovery. See the article below. Also, in the US they like to sue, a lot.https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwjin5XUl-LIAhWBg6YKHVgOBoc&url=https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/m/copa_safety/582392/download.aspx&usg=AFQjCNG5xDcPJ5CVN73jRXGSKWCce36XgQ&sig2=5XU0hdTnvR7yabcq0DR78A

'Recoverable' and and meeting FAR 23 specifications, is not the same thing. Matt Hall will recover a situation that the average pilot cannot.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

'Recoverable' and and meeting FAR 23 specifications, is not the same thing. Matt Hall will recover a situation that the average pilot cannot.

Agree. Average pilots regularly prove they can't recover an aircraft that does meet FAR 23 specifications.

 

 

[Dieselten]

The Cirrus CAPS has a significant number of lives saved due to its timely use inside the operating envelope. These are pilots who over-estimated their abilities, or believed that a high-tech, high-performance airframe would make them bullet-proof. So the prerequisite for a Cirrus parachute-deployment is a pilot who has made a series of errors of judgement which culminate in his using the superior recovery systems in the aeroplane to make up for his inferior decision-making or lack of judgement.

 

The Pipistrel system now also has one success, and the reason for it is much the same. Let us hope the number of successful saves with the Pipistrel system equals the number of times it is used, and that both numbers remain vanishingly small. Someone queried how much value I put on a passenger's life. In the case of the Pipistrel incident, since I was not the pilot concerned, the question is irrelevant. A better question would have been "how much value did the pilot place on his passenger's life?" The answer is "enough to fire the 'chute when it became imperative to do so." Self-preservation obviously played a part as well, and in preserving himself he also did the same for his passenger. A good result all round.

 

But fitting a BRS in itself isn't enough...the pilot must be prepared to actually use it in a timely manner. Prospective Cirrus owners are put in the Cirrus sim at the factory and deliberately placed in irrecoverable situations - and even some very high-time IFR pilots still "augur the sim in" a few times until they begin to reach for the handle when the job has gone "tits-up" beyond their ability to recover it. Some have to do it six or seven times before the message begins to filter through their cranial bones and into "the little grey cells".

 

Maybe similar training should be required for all prospective purchasers of BRS-equipped aircraft? It might well save some lives which would otherwise be lost as a pilot stubbornly refuses to admit defeat and flies the aircraft into terrain, or breaks it up in mid-air, just to prove his point that he knows more than the weather, or the law of gravity has been temporarily repealed by some special NOTAM! I'd rather see a forlorn pilot trudging away from his bent aeroplane, BRS parachute draped over the immediate surroundings, than watch him being carried away, charred and crisp, or in several rather messy pieces, in a body-bag.

 

The Pipistrel involved in the accident was being operated as a high-performance aircraft, at an elevated altitude, and in marginal conditions. It was effectively the ultralight equivalent of a Cirrus. It was also well outside its operational-enevlope, so the result was pretty much a foregone conclusion. A better example of a pilot deliberately lining up some of the holes in the Swiss Cheese would not be easy to find. All it needed after that was a loss of situational awareness, or spatial disorientation on his part, and the scene was set.

 

Neither the Cirrus or the Pipistrel are anything remotely like "a pig with lipstick". But, if pigs are to fly, then they'll fly a whole lot better if they are flown by well-trained pilots who operate them inside their operational limits and use their good judgement to prevent them getting into a situation where they need to demonstrate their superior skills - or resort to the use of whatever BRS the pig is fitted with.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The Cirrus was fitted with a BRS because it could not meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirements. Fairly much analogous with stating that a car can't meet the standard braking requirements, so it has extra airbags fitted so as not to cause - potentially - more injuries to its occupants than a car with an effective braking system.

Do you remember Mercedes and the moose test, where it would roll over when swerving at high speed?

 

putting in airbags to pass the moose test would be fine by me, unlikely to ever see a moose, but grateful for extra airbags in case I ever get hit by a truck.

 

 

[jetjr]

Wouldnt design effors to reduce an aicrafts bad behaviour be a better solution?

 

FAA thought so giving the Icon a MTOW exemption to achieve spin resistance

 

Time on the Sim to avoid IFR in Icing conditions might be useful too

 

I have no issue with having a brs, but to HAVE to have one to meet safety performance standards is not a sound decision.

 

Like using PPE to prevent injury, its the last option after every other way is exhausted because it snt always effective.

 

 

[facthunter]

THIS aircraft wasn't spinning. Had it been doing it, It would not have built up speed, because that is how you recognise a spin, as distinct from a SPIRAL. where the eventual result is usually a breakup of the structure, due to overspeed /overload/flutter etc. In a spin the airspeed fluctuates a bit around a more or less steady figure somewhat near the stall speed of the aircraft.. Even a lightly built airframe is unlikely to break up while in a spin. It isn't excessively loaded, but will usually show about 2-3 "G" in the recovery from the dive on exit even if done very carefully . Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Hitting a bit of cumulus granitus in a spin is likely to cause breakup.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Dieselten your opinion on this shocks me...that somehow people who choose chutes need cognitive behaviour therapy to know when to pull the handle...

 

i take your point that they should pull and pull early, but its a big jump to think they all need CBT to achieve this...in fact it could more sensibly be argued the complete opposite, that those chosing to purchase a BRS are well aware of thier limitations compared to some people potentially inadvertantly stigmatising that choice.

 

 

[facthunter]

I believe people considering fitting a ballistic chute want extra assurance. They wish to buy added safety. Analysis of what happens and how effective it is and under what conditions it works best would have to be part of the package, or it's effectiveness won't be optimum. It's not the ULTIMATE fix all. Like everything it has it's limitations. Users should be aware of every aspect of the device.

 

If you don't have one, You don't need to know this information as it's not applicable. (unless you want to rescue someone from a plane that has one fitted) Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Dieselten your opinion on this shocks me...that somehow people who choose chutes need cognitive behaviour therapy to know when to pull the handle... i take your point that they should pull and pull early, but its a big jump to think they all need CBT to achieve this...

It's not an opinion, it's (unreferenced) data.

 

The plural of anecdote is not data, but in this case the data apparently exists.

 

This very case illustrates that some pilots will want to fly the plane to the site of the crash rather than pulling the chute.

 

 

[Dieselten]

My "anecdote" comes first-hand from a presentation given to a group of pilots by the Cirrus sales reps in Australia. They went through the design philosophy, added the fact that in the hands of a well-qualified and properly-trainned pilot the Cirrus can recover from a spin without using the CAPS (but it takes time and altitude, which may not be in plentiful supply), and then told us about the number of highly-qualified pilots who augur the sim in simply becausde they believe they can recover an irrecoverable situation.

 

Once I had absorbed the very large amount of information they gave us, I revised my opinions of the Cirrus considerably. They also answered some very cogent and penetrating questions honestly, fully and to the satisfaction of the assembled pilots, several of whom were multi-thousand hour experience, others of whom were instructors.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Even if every aircraft was equipped with a BRS and then taken a step further and removed the decision making as to when to pull the handle just like they have in skydiving, with the introduction of the AAD that has pretty much removed bouncing with a perfectly functional canopy still packed from the sport, you will find that pilots will find another way of keeping the fatality rate up there just as in jumping.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Even if every aircraft was equipped with a BRS and then taken a step further and removed the decision making as to when to pull the handle just like they have in skydiving, with the introduction of the AAD that has pretty much removed bouncing with a perfectly functional canopy still packed from the sport, you will find that pilots will find another way of keeping the fatality rate up there just as in jumping.

The legislators can only design for people with functional neurones...the rest belong to Darwin's theory of evolution...and somehow need to be stopped before they ever get and RPC

 

 

[eightyknots]

The Cirrus was fitted with a BRS because it could not meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirements. Fairly much analogous with stating that a car can't meet the standard braking requirements, so it has extra airbags fitted so as not to cause - potentially - more injuries to its occupants than a car with an effective braking system.Pig with lipstick.

Are you serious? If so, that is a jury-rig fix!

 

 

[Oscar]

Yes, I am serious. If you look carefully at the statements from Cirrus, you will note that they say : 'can be recovered' ( and sotto voce, 'by a sufficiently competent pilot' - if you read between the lines). I know very well a CASA-approved test pilot, who can recover from a 150-degree wing drop in an aggravated stall/turn test in a mere 900 feet height loss. Not hearsay or estimation: calibrated results.

 

The original Lancair 3X series was tested by, I believe, Keith Engelsman and demonstrated a 70--degree wing drop in the stall/turn situation. That also does not meet the FAR23 requirements, but since it was always an experimental aircraft, that did not disqualify it from getting an experimental certificate. Both the early Cirrus and the early Lancairs are over-represented in fatals on average; perhaps coincidence?

 

If I understand it correctly ( and I have little interest in Cirrus aircraft) , it is recommended by the factory that one should not attempt spin recovery, but pull the Big Red Handle. Possibly (if one were cynical) one could see this as a marketing ploy, since descent under the BRS will result in, more-than-usually, totalling the airframe. Or - on the other hand - it could be looked at as an arse-covering exercise against massive lawsuits resulting from fatal accidents: 'our aircraft didn't kill you, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?'

 

Personally, I think that marketing a seriously expensive aircraft on the basis that it is disposable if things get a bit out-of-shape is pretty damn cheeky. However, I note that Lamborghini and Ferrari market seriously expensive machines that spontaneously combust, so perhaps this is the new norm. You get what you pay for, with added life-threatening extras built-in, for just a whole heap of money?

 

 

[DrZoos]

Yes, I am serious. If you look carefully at the statements from Cirrus, you will note that they say : 'can be recovered' ( and sotto voce, 'by a sufficiently competent pilot' - if you read between the lines). I know very well a CASA-approved test pilot, who can recover from a 150-degree wing drop in an aggravated stall/turn test in a mere 900 feet height loss. Not hearsay or estimation: calibrated results.The original Lancair 3X series was tested by, I believe, Keith Engelsman and demonstrated a 70--degree wing drop in the stall/turn situation. That also does not meet the FAR23 requirements, but since it was always an experimental aircraft, that did not disqualify it from getting an experimental certificate. Both the early Cirrus and the early Lancairs are over-represented in fatals on average; perhaps coincidence?

 

If I understand it correctly ( and I have little interest in Cirrus aircraft) , it is recommended by the factory that one should not attempt spin recovery, but pull the Big Red Handle. Possibly (if one were cynical) one could see this as a marketing ploy, since descent under the BRS will result in, more-than-usually, totalling the airframe. Or - on the other hand - it could be looked at as an ****-covering exercise against massive lawsuits resulting from fatal accidents: 'our aircraft didn't kill you, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?'

 

Personally, I think that marketing a seriously expensive aircraft on the basis that it is disposable if things get a bit out-of-shape is pretty damn cheeky. However, I note that Lamborghini and Ferrari market seriously expensive machines that spontaneously combust, so perhaps this is the new norm. You get what you pay for, with added life-threatening extras built-in, for just a whole heap of money?

I think its brilliant marketing... think about who their market is......and what they value and have time for...

 

They are people with loads of money and in 95%+ of the cases they will be time poor or very time poor. Meaning flying is likely an infrequent indulgence, means of personal or business transport.. etc etc... Most of these people pay and pay well for exactly these types of features... anything they can pay to have someone else take care of is deemed a bonus worth paying for... If Cirrus overcomplicate it and talk about it like you do they would be lucky to sell a single plane.

 

Im not passing judgement on whether thats a safe or correct approach, but its a brilliant marketing move that perfectly matches the thinking of their primary targets.

 

These people buy lots of fast food or restaurant meals , first class airline seats, have house cleaners, dog walkers and personal trainers... because it allows them to concentrate on what they do best, which is earning money and then enjoying it.

 

They hate what ifs, focusing on negatives and finicky details, when there are fast solutions