BRS Parachute News

[AZAV8OR]

AndyB,

 

"I found the plane to be very docile in stalls, and with 2100 hours in the Cirrus and plenty of stall practice, I never had any issues whatsoever in that regard."

 

I once was surprised at finding my SR20 just short of a full spin caused by overly agressive footwork during a delayed recovery stall. (PARE worked just fine) That said, I agree that it's a docile machine!

[coppercity]

As a former Cirrus owner, I've kept my powder dry on this one, pondering how I should respond without sounding like a CAPS/BRS zealot. I'm glad I did. Andy, extremely well written!

 

Agree!  Well put Andy and thanks from a current Cirrus pilot/instructor.  I'm always amazed at the arguments against a device that can save your life and those of your passengers.

[Roger Lee]

It's good insurance. You never know when you're proclaimed 100% great flying skills makes a mistake or mother nature intervenes.

 

It's like insurance. You hope you never need it, but may be indispensable if you ever do. There are always armchair quarterbacks and they weren't in the game or the cockpit under the same pressure when it hits the fan.

[FlyingMonkey]

It's good insurance. You never know when you're proclaimed 100% great flying skills makes a mistake or mother nature intervenes.

 

It's like insurance. You hope you never need it, but may be indispensable if you ever do. There are always armchair quarterbacks and they weren't in the game or the cockpit under the same pressure when it hits the fan.

 

Well said.

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

For whatever reason, I could only one of the links you posted on pedestrian injury/fatalities from the aircraft crashes. It was tragic. I pulled the NTSB report on that accident (Piper on the beach). The pilot testified, and ground witnesses seemed to confirm that he attempted to fly the crippled aircraft in as to avoid hitting a large group of people on the beach. The two that were hit were in the water at the time, and the pilot said that he could not see them as he came in (not that he could have missed them anyway). I also spent some time with Google and found five other incidents where people on the ground were injured by aircraft. In three of those cases, the pilot testifies that they took steps to avoid population areas or observed persons on the ground.

In the case of the Piper on the beach, two people were killed. There is likely a large row of condos just inland of where the plane landed. How many people lived because the pilot maintained some control of the aircraft clear to the ground? Maybe none...........maybe many.

 

I agree that we will never find anyone who has lived through a chute pull event who was not glad that they had one, but had that Piper been under chute, and landed on a large group of people because the aircraft could not be controlled and the former pilot became a passenger, I bet that there would be many on the ground who would  wish he had not had one.

 

You are right that there is no comparison to ground accidents in aircraft without chute to aircraft with. It would be like comparing my hometown of 450 people to the city of Tokyo.

 

Like Tom, I run an aircraft maintenance company, where we work on small singles, standard airworthiness and ELSA/SLSA, to transport category aircraft. At one time, I believe that we maintained the bulk of the Cirrus aircraft fleet in the local area (I don't do that type of maintenance anymore though, but not because I don't like Cirrus). I see a wide range of pilots and owners too. None of them has ever "proclaimed 100% great flying skills". Never heard any arm-chair quarterbacking either. The folks that I have run across who are actively engaged, seem to just want to enhance aviation, by continuing try to contemplate all possible aspects of the responsibilities that we share.

 

 

 

Doug Hereford

[Tom Baker]

Doug, I'm not a parachute zealot, but I don't share your stance against them. I do agree that you do relinquish control over where the airplane is going to go when you pull the chute, but I don't see it being the big issue like you are portraying it. An airplane coming down under chute would have a relatively small foot print where it could hit and kill someone. I see the odds of it happening as being pretty small. You looked at a couple accidents where the airplane struck someone while under control while landing. What about the ones who have crashed while setting up to make that controlled landing, killing the people on board as well as risking lives or killing someone on the ground. While the odds of that happening is relatively low it has happened before, and I think that the odds would be higher than it would be for a airplane coming down under chute. 

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

I think we are saying basically the same thing. As I have said repeatedly, I am not an anti-parachute zealot either. Just trying to give another perspective on something that, at first glance, seems to have no down-side. I agree that the odds of anything falling from the sky and hitting someone on the ground are fairly slim. I do not agree that it is a non-issue (as has been stated by others).

 

When we first began working on Cirrus aircraft years ago, I started asking many of my professional pilot friends about  what they thought of chutes. The almost unanimous responses I got from them were actually very negative. I found myself arguing in favor of the devise more often than not. Now I find myself firmly in the center. I do see it as an additional grave responsibility that we have as pilots...........................the decision to pull or not pull.

 

Doug Hereford

[Tip]

Great video. The BRS did its job.

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/video/2017/01/story-of-lou-morton-cirrus-sr22-crash-pacific-ocean/

[gbigs]

Great video. The BRS did its job.

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/video/2017/01/story-of-lou-morton-cirrus-sr22-crash-pacific-ocean/

 

This is an old video.  The guy didn't test his ferry tanks before departing and ended up short fuel and destroyed a brand new aircraft.

[Tip]

The interview makes me wonder why Cirrus pilots pull the chute, and CT pilots almost always try to land it? I'm guessing that the Cirrus guys get more training.

[FlyingMonkey]

Training is probably part of it.  There is also a big safety difference in off-airport landings between an airplane that can approach at 50-55kt and one that approaches at 75-80kt.  There are more acceptable opportunities/situations for landing a CT than a Cirrus off-airport.  

[gbigs]

The interview makes me wonder why Cirrus pilots pull the chute, and CT pilots almost always try to land it? I'm guessing that the Cirrus guys get more training.

 

As as both a former CT owner and a current Cirrus owner I had no parachute training for the CT and but did get formal factory training which includes a simulator session in Diluth, MN for the Cirrus.  The Cirrus online training portal and the aircraft manuals cover the use of the BRS chute also but the CT has no documentation on the chutes use.

 

But the reason you hear about Cirrus pulls and not often a CT pull is more likely due to numbers, the size of the fleet.  Cirrus has more than 6,000 planes in the air and adds about 300 more each year.  The CT of course is a fraction of that fleet size (around 300 worldwide).  Also, the Cirrus planes are built and used for cross-country flying....whereas the CT is a patch plane and is never far from their home field. 

 

The risks are much higher when flying cross-country in regard to flying over long stretches of desolate terrain, weather (Cirrus is IFR and ice certified), higher altitudes where oxygen is required, more often flying into and out of complex/busy airspaces and the need to fly at night and across water.

[Tom Baker]

  Cirrus has more than 6,000 planes in the air and adds about 300 more each year.  The CT of course is a fraction of that fleet size (around 300 worldwide). 

 

There are 376 Flight Design CT model aircraft on register with the FAA in the USA. The number worldwide is over 1,800.

[FlyingMonkey]

the CT is a patch plane and is never far from their home field. 

 

 

 

The CT must have a pretty big "patch" then.  Many of us fly 500+ mile cross countries with some regularity.  Last year I flew a 2800nm+ round trip cross country, and another one that was 1400nm+.  Not to mention the folks that have crossed the Atlantic and circled the Earth in CTs.  

 

They are certainly often used for local flying, but "never far from their home field" is not even close to correct.

[WmInce]

The risks are much higher when flying cross-country in regard to flying over long stretches of desolate terrain, weather (Cirrus is IFR and ice certified), higher altitudes where oxygen is required, more often flying into and out of complex/busy airspaces and the need to fly at night and across water.

Are we supposed to be impressed?

What is your point?

[gbigs]

The CT must have a pretty big "patch" then.  Many of us fly 500+ mile cross countries with some regularity.  Last year I flew a 2800nm+ round trip cross country, and another one that was 1400nm+.  Not to mention the folks that have crossed the Atlantic and circled the Earth in CTs.  

 

They are certainly often used for local flying, but "never far from their home field" is not even close to correct.

 

People fly weight shift kites over the Sierras but they only try it once.  And a solar only plane and a hot-air balloon made it around the world too but those are one-offs.

 

The FD CT can be flown longer distances than just arond the patch but you are doing it at a much greater risk than in a plane equipped with oxygen, de-icing, much higher-performance and have the flexibility of flying higher than 10,000 feet.

 

And as I pointed out, few fly their CT regularly cross-country...but Cirrus drivers do it routinely.  And there are very few CTs flying as opposed to the thousands of Cirrus in the air.  That is the main reason you don't see the CT in the news much regarding chute pulls, IMHO.

 

Transatlantic Ferry Flight from Duluth, Minnesota to Blackpool, UK in a Cirrus SR22T

 

Duluth to Netherlands in a SR22 G5 

 

Cirrus SR22 NYC to Bahamas

 

17 Hours 3000 Miles Solo Super Cross Country Cirrus SR22  

 

Cirrus SR22 Super Cross Country: 3 Days, 5 IFR Flights, 14 Hours, 2,500 Miles

 

Fly New York City to San Francisco in a Cirrus SR22T 

[Tom Baker]

 

  And there are very few CTs flying as opposed to the thousands of Cirrus in the air.  That is the main reason you don't see the CT in the news much regarding chute pulls, IMHO.

 

 

There are 1800 Flight Design aircraft flying worldwide. That is 30% the number of Cirri. The number of airplanes that make the news is way disproportionate to the numbers in service.

[FlyingMonkey]

The FD CT can be flown longer distances than just arond the patch but you are doing it at a much greater risk than in a plane equipped with oxygen, de-icing, much higher-performance and have the flexibility of flying higher than 10,000 feet.

 

And as I pointed out, few fly their CT regularly cross-country...but Cirrus drivers do it routinely. And there are very few CTs flying as opposed to the thousands of Cirrus in the air. That is the main reason you don't see the CT in the news much regarding chute pulls, IMHO.

 

If CTs were flown the way Cirri are, It would be unsafe. But they are not. We don't fly in icing, IMC, or high altitudes. In the regimes we fly, the Cirrus is no safer than a CT. And I'm with Tom that the Cirrus seems to have higher accident and fatal rates than other light singles.

 

Many CT fliers do long distance flying regularly. I'm planning a 600 mile trip this weekend in fact. I do those distances many times a year.

[coppercity]

We fly both a CTLS and a new FIKI SR-22T G5.  Obviously the Cirrus is far more capable as far as speed, altitude and inclement weather but we certainly feel safe in either for any trip short or long.  The CT and Cirrus are great cross country machines and we have been across the US many times in both.  Weather is the biggest factor for the CT on long trips.  Not that weather isn't a factor for the Cirrus as well, but having IMC capability opens up some additional flying hours.  Not a big fan of flying in icing even with the FIKI Cirrus that handles light icing well.  The Cirrus does give you confidence in flying in more inclement weather which may attribute to its higher accident rate.   

[FlyingMonkey]

Weather is the biggest factor for the CT on long trips.  Not that weather isn't a factor for the Cirrus as well, but having IMC capability opens up some additional flying hours. 

 

I think you well stated the big cross country difference.  In the CT you can make those long trips, but you have to be prepared to spend some time on the ground if the weather demands it, whereas in the Cirrus you can punch through some of it without delay.

[Tom Baker]

I think you well stated the big cross country difference.  In the CT you can make those long trips, but you have to be prepared to spend some time on the ground if the weather demands it, whereas in the Cirrus you can punch through some of it without delay.

 

Only if you are instrument rated and current. Unless you are proficient as well, rated and current doesn't mean much. If you are not proficient and punching through that weather you are a good candidate for the chute.

[FlyingMonkey]

Only if you are instrument rated and current. Unless you are proficient as well, rated and current doesn't mean much. If you are not proficient and punching through that weather you are a good candidate for the chute.

 

Agreed, and that seems to be where pilots of more advanced airplanes come to grief...they are trained but not proficient, and act like they mean the same thing.

[Tom Baker]

Agreed, and that seems to be where pilots of more advanced airplanes come to grief...they are trained but not proficient, and act like they mean the same thing.

 

Andy, I am a good example. I am instrument rated, though not current. I have only been current twice in over 25 years. once when I received my rating, and the second right after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I got current then to fly pipeline patrol in VFR conditions. Even if I was to go get current I would not be proficient enough to fly any serious IFR. While I could no doubt fly a Cirrus or any other high performance airplane, I know enough to know that I have no business flying them in hard IFR conditions.

[gbigs]

If CTs were flown the way Cirri are, It would be unsafe. But they are not. We don't fly in icing, IMC, or high altitudes. In the regimes we fly, the Cirrus is no safer than a CT. And I'm with Tom that the Cirrus seems to have higher accident and fatal rates than other light singles.

 

Many CT fliers do long distance flying regularly. I'm planning a 600 mile trip this weekend in fact. I do those distances many times a year.

 

When flying long distances from home the chances of hitting weather, high terrain, rough air and other hazards increase exponentially. 

 

For example.  when we flew the Cirrus back from Diluth last year we had to fly over the top of Salt Lake City Bravo in order to avoid bad weather North and South of the airport and to thread a needle between two Restricteds on the way to Nevada.  Winter flying (half the year) for example would be nearly impossible for a CT on anything like a 1000nm trip one way.

 

Half the country is mountainous, from Colorado to California...clearing the Rockies and the Sierras safely for instance is not really inside the circle for the CT.  We never even attempted it once from Nevada to California when we owned the CT.  Just hitting mountain wave winds was enough to make the idea unsavoring.  We fly over all of that with the Cirrus and do it routinely without giving it a second thought now.

 

I am simply pointing out that the mission for the CT is more restrictive for obvious reasons and the windows for flying far away from the patch are also much narrower (spring/summer).  And it's also likely the reason you do not see many chute pulls for the CT.  There are few of them flying, and most of the time they are not flying far from their home fields.

[WmInce]

An LSA can go anywhere a Cirrus can go except high altitudes. It just takes longer. But regardless, a parachute is a good thing to have.

It could not have been said any better.

Like several other pilot/owners, I have flown my CT coast to coast, and it handled the trips just fine . . . although, it takes a little longer and is a little less comfortable than an A-330.

I hope nobody here, thinks that just because the Cirrus is equipped with a parachute (like many light sport aircraft), has a higher service ceiling and can be flown in limited IFR conditions (no severe turb and/or severe icing), that should be construed to mean that more risky chances can be taken in its operation. Based upon a couple of posts here, I kind of get that impression.