Another Cirrus landing by parachute 3 Nov 15

[facthunter]

Some long term maintenance and repair people I know don't like them. There was a performance comparo between one and an Beech A36 or Bonanza and the Beech came out not far behind in performance and a lot better in other ways. Think AOPA (aust) did it. Beech are well made. Would cost a fortune new. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I refuse to pass judgement on the PIC simply because I wasn't in his shoes, .

Hand in your Internet licence immediately.

 

 

[Yenn]

Funny, not a mention of Human resources, although I did see airmanship mentioned. Why did we do all that HR work and should it have been applied here?

 

 

[Jaba-who]

maybe the answer is not the parachute, its not to buy a Cirrus, they seem to be dropping out of the sky at an alarming rate.

Time to repeat the same statement made when Jabiru engines have the same thing said.

What are the stats for cirrus failures? Just because some reports appear doesn't mean anything at all. Could be flying far more hours than the rest of the rest of the fleet for fewer but more sensationised failures.

 

Any stats anyone.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yenn, Don't think GA have to do it. Airlines do. Your point is very valid in the context you raise it. Nev

 

 

[robinsm]

Time to repeat the same statement made when Jabiru engines have the same thing said.What are the stats for cirrus failures? Just because some reports appear doesn't mean anything at all. Could be flying far more hours than the rest of the rest of the fleet for fewer but more sensationised failures.

 

Any stats anyone.

I dont have a problem with the aircraft, in fact I know little about them and it was not my intent to criticise the actual aircraft. I was commenting on the fact that there seem to be a few of these using parachutes instead of flying them safely, by passing airfields when problems indicate it may have been prudent to land and check things, others flying over unsafe areas etc.. The parachute in these cases seems to be being used as an excuse not to use safe planning and decision making.

 

 

[shafs64]

is the decent rate under the chute high. I read somewhere that it was 1800 per minute ?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hope it is not that high, 23ft per second is about as high as I want to land at.

 

 

[BLA82]

The engine is a consumable item on an aeroplane. I refuse to pass judgement on the PIC simply because I wasn't in his shoes, I didn't face the circumstances he had to face

Consumable?? Fuel is a consumable, oil is a consumable. I think the engine is slightly more important then that and the day it becomes a consumable you own the wrong engine.

 

And in regards to not being in his shoes fair call but can you tell me one situation that would justify flying over numerous airfields for a few hours with a warning light on besides being a total twat.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Dieselten is right they are a consumable, over a longer period of time. Slowly consuming themselves as they wear over time and hours flown.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

But over 1000 hours and still the lump of metal hanging off the front of the plane, is a little different that a litre of petrol being consumed in 3 minutes (20 L per Hr) and gone out the exhaust to mingle with other atmospheric gasses. . People think of consumables as things that are used and gone and no longer visible.

 

The engine is a Depreciating Asset with a finite lifespan. Fuel is a consumable, you can't refurbish a litre of petrols worth of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides back into fuel again. You can refurbish an engine back to "zero hour" rated.

 

 

[Dieselten]

...and 384 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Apparently with out power the Cirrus is a unsafe heap of crap I would not get in one.

Who told you that rubbish? I've done my last four A F R'S in the SR 22. I can tell you first hand that they behave very well without engine power..

and I've also done a couple in the A 3 6 bonanza and would rate the Cirrus better overall. Bad airman ship was the cause of the majority of chute pulls giving those involved an opportunity to question THEIR decision making.. would I have continued with a illuminated warning light on the panel flying on over more suitable landing areas (airfields) in any aircraft, be it a Sky fox or Cirrus? NO!!!

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bad airman ship was the cause of the majority of chute pulls

Ties in with my thinking that with it's anti-stall wings, the BRS and a general "safest plane in the world" type garb that the type of pilot attracted in some cases would be the first to panic and pull the chute handle. That is in no way a judgement on the bulk of Cirrus pilots.

 

A point that seems to be missed with all the pilot critique is that his passenger was a mechanic, the pilot could have been, and was likely, flying on that person's judgement about what was going on up front.

 

 

[facthunter]

The buck stops with the PIC Bex. That's the COMMAND bit. and airmanship is what airmen should exhibit. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Who told you that rubbish?

I read it on a thread somewhere on these forums, it was stated the engine out performance / handling was so unsafe they had to be fitted with a ballistic chute in order to be certified.

 

 

[ExJourno]

Have been in an SR22... They aren't poor handlers, they are, however, at least the very early ones, twitchy. Or, in other words, responsive to inputs and really a first plane.

 

The one I've been in was cruising at 165kts. The SR20 models were slower, I believe.

 

I can say I did watch a pilot get very tired flying one of these a relatively short distance when the GPS failed rendering the autopilot useless... He had to work hard and it never seemed to just settle, I've often wondered if this plane had been bent at some stage.

 

I do like them. However, I know of one too many that have had ludicrous maintenance costs (one. One was too many).

 

And as for the chute thing... I looked hard and never found any formal documentation that they had to have one... only conjecture and mostly that was from those who could never afford one anyway... Go figure.

 

As for the arguments over pull the chute or not, the operators manual for the plane I was in dictated pulling it in almost every conceivable circumstance of emergency above (I can't recall if it was 2000 or 4000ft). This included, interestingly for a fully IFR plane, entering IMC as a non-IFR pilot. Enter cloud, pull the power then the chute. Declare mayday.

 

I dunno if I'd try to glide one. It would likely depend on where I was, what was under me, who was I the plane with me and my mood on the day.

 

One thing is for sure, with a failed deployment they have been shown to still glide. However, it is too late to pull the chute if you're smashed on the ground.

 

I wonder if the types that will pull the chute without a second thought are also the types who will take a gentle (relatively) straight ahead crash in EFOTA.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you have to install a chute (and I understand it is a requirement) You sell the idea of having one. That is good business in the circumstances. Nev

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

I read it on a thread somewhere on these forums, it was stated the engine out performance / handling was so unsafe they had to be fitted with a ballistic chute in order to be certified.[/quoteNo Teckair, the true fact of the matter and not heresay of someone's incorrect opinion is that the chute is there purely to comply with certification as an E L O S. As the wing design makes it pretty hard to firstly get into a spin and if you manage to get one spinning... fairly hard to get out..

Adam, you don't need the autopilot to fly the Cirrus effortlessly, just trim out correctly like any other aeroplane... obviously the person you flew with forgot to use trim... or flew it so bad.. it felt "twitchy".. You don't need the G P S for autopilot, it will still follow a heading bug.. chute deployment should be carried out above 1500 feet a g L and below 131 knots.. If a V F R pilot inadvertently enters I M C then the chute could be a lifesaver considering the alternative of loss of control or controlled flight into terrain (and the crash comics are full of those examples)

[ExJourno]

Ahh damnit I typoed.

 

They are not really a first plane, it was meant to say.

 

Mate, if you properly read my comment you'll see I said twitchy and added that this means responsive. Contrast it to some planes needing bigger inputs versus the smaller inputs required for similar movement in the cirrus.

 

Trimming... you can refer to my note about pondering over whether it had been bent at some stage.

 

I was there and saw this happen first hand:. When the GPS failed, the auto-pilot went too. Perhaps it was not dependent on it, in which case they failed simultaneously. Let me be clear - the GPS shut down and the autopilot disengaged Immediately. To be fair, I will admit I took the assumption and I did not hang around when it was bitched about at the tech's hangar... I was well into overtime and went home the second we pulled up.

 

And now that I'm thinking about it, this was the same flight that the transponder turned itself off while still in the circuit at the Sunshine Coast... that particular first version SR22 spent a lot of time have electrical items fixed, and fixed and fixed... Make of that what you may. You just got me wondering if the failure was related to other electrical gremlins. I'd go ask, but the company that owned it started liquidation a few months ago... I pity whomever buys it.

 

Edit: I neglected to mention your answer re IMC chute deployment... Yep. It may well be the lifesaving factor, I agree, hense my choice if the word "interestingly". I find it of interest that the manual dictates as it does.

 

I'm not sure if you were bolstering some parts of what I mentioned or correcting me... gotta love the Internet for that. So many people do not read the literal meanings of words... it is downright bemusing at times.

 

The chute deployment height, I took a look, it may change between models (series)... See below:

 

 

[ExJourno]

This is from a document that dictates no specific height for deployment, but suggests 2000 may be the minimum safe decision alt... somewhere else it stated 133kts max demonstrated for deployment... 500pages... Sorry, couldn't be bothered wading back through to find it again.