Interestingly CAP just received a memo from Cirrus warning us about the
parachute system and the airbag system. Apparently both become very
dangerous items to a recovery team. They said recovery teams should
**NOT** approach the aircraft until contacting Cirrus if at all
possible. Apparently there is concern that the chute can go off hours
after the accident or that the airbags can explode in front of rescue
teams.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>Interestingly CAP just received a memo from Cirrus warning us about the
>parachute system and the airbag system. Apparently both become very
>dangerous items to a recovery team. They said recovery teams should
>**NOT** approach the aircraft until contacting Cirrus if at all
>possible. Apparently there is concern that the chute can go off hours
>after the accident or that the airbags can explode in front of rescue
>teams.
>
>-Robert

That is comforting. You crash in a Cirrus but sustain
life-threatening injuries. So no one can assist until Cirrus is
contacted. So they wait a safe distance from the aircraft until you
die.

Ron Lee

The key phrase is probably "...if at all possible" (that's my
rephrasing, if you are interested I can get the actual memo). However,
your concern is valid. The guys who show up to get you out of the plane
will probably be a CAP ground team. The level of personal risk a
volunteer is willing to accept to pull your bottom out of the aircraft
may vary wildly. However, from my 1 year in CAP this doesn't often seem
to be an issue. When you flight a down plane people are usually either
up and walking around or long gone. This is probably because it takes
so much longer for rescue to reach airplanes vs. cars on the freeway.

-Robert

Ron Lee > wrote:

> That is comforting. You crash in a Cirrus but sustain
> life-threatening injuries. So no one can assist until Cirrus is
> contacted. So they wait a safe distance from the aircraft until you
> die.

I have a friend who is a sergeant with the NY State Police. Three and a
half years ago he was the first responder to the fatal Cirrus spin crash
here in Central NY.

He told me was that the police and rescue squad were all warned to remain
clear of the aircraft because of the explosive device used to launch the
parachute. He also added that it was obvious from the state of the bodies
that they were not there to save the pilots lives.

--
Peter

I am not sure I would willingly fly around with this much life
endangering explosive products in the baggage compartment of my
Warrior....

And in an aircraft that was not engineered to willingly assist the
pilot to maintain, recover to, and sustain controlled flight..

Hmmmmmm...

But, alas, I am also having difficulty in understanding why Garmin
would install magnets in their remote GPS antenna that commonly is
placed on the cowl/glareshield of of what is usually an ALUMINUM or
COMPOSITE aircraft.

Must be getting old, I'm having trouble understanding some things..

Dave



..On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:08:02 -0500, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>> That is comforting. You crash in a Cirrus but sustain
>> life-threatening injuries. So no one can assist until Cirrus is
>> contacted. So they wait a safe distance from the aircraft until you
>> die.
>
>I have a friend who is a sergeant with the NY State Police. Three and a
>half years ago he was the first responder to the fatal Cirrus spin crash
>here in Central NY.
>
>He told me was that the police and rescue squad were all warned to remain
>clear of the aircraft because of the explosive device used to launch the
>parachute. He also added that it was obvious from the state of the bodies
>that they were not there to save the pilots lives.

Dave > wrote:
> I am not sure I would willingly fly around with this much life
> endangering explosive products in the baggage compartment of my
> Warrior....

When fuel tanks are less than full, one may have an explosive air/fuel
vapor mixture in them. And post-crash fires are sufficiently common that
I'm not sure why a ballistic chute system is considered any more dangerous
than many dozens of pounds of highly flammable liquid. Why would one
consider an undeployed BRS more dangerous than a fuel system on a crashed
plane?

[...]
> Must be getting old, I'm having trouble understanding some things..

Me too. :-)

"Dave" > wrote\

> And in an aircraft that was not engineered to willingly assist the
> pilot to maintain, recover to, and sustain controlled flight..
++++++++++++++++++
I'm not sure if that is the whole picture. The Cirrus was not certified for
spin resistance and recovery because it would have been so expensive to do
so, up to the FAA's standards. That is not to say that it would not meet
them, if they tried to do so.
+++++++++++++++++++
Simply put, they took the cheap way out, with the *added* benefit of another
mode of recovery for other types of situations, such as pilot
incompacitation, loss of flight controls, loss of power over inhospitable
terrain...
+++++++++++++++++++
> But, alas, I am also having difficulty in understanding why Garmin
> would install magnets in their remote GPS antenna that commonly is
> placed on the cowl/glareshield of of what is usually an ALUMINUM or
> COMPOSITE aircraft.
>
> Must be getting old, I'm having trouble understanding some things..
+++++++++++++++++++
Nah, that is called wisdom... I think! <g>

I predict that Garmin will finally give in and make a new type of antenna.
(I hope)
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:56:14 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Dave > wrote:
>> I am not sure I would willingly fly around with this much life
>> endangering explosive products in the baggage compartment of my
>> Warrior....
>
>When fuel tanks are less than full, one may have an explosive air/fuel
>vapor mixture in them. And post-crash fires are sufficiently common that

That's *may* have, but under normal circumstances I'd expect the
mixture to be above the UEL.

Post crash fires and particularly the spectacular ones are usually
from ruptured tanks.

>I'm not sure why a ballistic chute system is considered any more dangerous
>than many dozens of pounds of highly flammable liquid. Why would one
>consider an undeployed BRS more dangerous than a fuel system on a crashed
>plane?

The fuel can leak away and vaporize so if there is no immediate fire
there is unlikely to be one. OTOH a primed BRS is primed until
disabled.

To me, it wouldn't make a bit of difference between the two.
If the paths taken where the lanyards are in the fuselage and wings
were marked out they could have avoid areas.

As far as airbags, the system should be capable of being disarmed
easily. If not, it needs fixing.

OTOH It makes me no more nervous to fly planes with out a BRS than it
does with..

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>[...]
>> Must be getting old, I'm having trouble understanding some things..
>
>Me too. :-)

Jim,

> Why would one
> consider an undeployed BRS more dangerous than a fuel system on a crashed
> plane?
>

Because in the former case, it is much clearer who to sue in a frivolous law
suit.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

> Apparently there is concern that the chute can go off hours
> after the accident or that the airbags can explode in front of rescue
> teams.
>

And of course we ALL know the reports about how that (the latter)
happens all the time in car wrecks. Oh, we don't?

Time for a reality check...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Yes, in fact there is a lot more information now concerning car crashes
being given to Firefighters. Apparently, in addition to the risk of
undeployed airbags, suspension struts are now considered highly
dangerous to Firefighters. There have been several documented cases in
which a car, on fire, as released its struct at a very high velocity.
Apparently it can easily cut a hole in a firetruck. Fireflighters die
trying to rescue people from their burnnig cars more often than people
realize.

-Robert

Apparently the pressure is building...

It is an expensive unit, and some people are getting upset..

The magnets are very difficult to remove, Garmen has made it
abundantly clear that this will void the warranty, and have no
interest in exchanging it for one without magnets, which of course
they don't make ..

Or something like that... :(

WHAT were they thinking? (or were they) Surprising from a company with
long experience in aviation GPS units....

Dave

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:59:14 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>I predict that Garmin will finally give in and make a new type of antenna.
>(I hope)

Morgans wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote\
>
> > And in an aircraft that was not engineered to willingly assist the
> > pilot to maintain, recover to, and sustain controlled flight..
> ++++++++++++++++++
> I'm not sure if that is the whole picture. The Cirrus was not certified for
> spin resistance and recovery because it would have been so expensive to do
> so, up to the FAA's standards. That is not to say that it would not meet
> them, if they tried to do so.
> +++++++++++++++++++
> Simply put, they took the cheap way out, with the *added* benefit of another
> mode of recovery for other types of situations, such as pilot
> incompacitation, loss of flight controls, loss of power over inhospitable
> terrain...

It was cheaper to design, test and certify a BRS than it was to take
the plane up and do a couple of spins? I think not. The CAPS tests
themselves required the destruction of at least one airframe. Spin
testing just has to show recovery after a couple times around.

The reason the Cirrus was not spin tested is because it is very stall
resistant. Any maneuver that could throw this plane into a spin might
be so violent as to be unrecoverable. There have been accidents
attributed to people trying deliberately to spin the Cirrus. There is
no reason to attempt to spin the airplane anyway. It is unlikely to
enter a spin accidentally, so it is not as if it is a needed emergency
procedure.

Some people claim the airplane will successfully recover from at least
an initial spin. Fine. But why bother? Cirrus strongly discourages it.
It is not really certified for it. There is no training advantage to
it. If I want to do spins then give me an airplane where they will be
fun; even Aerobat. Doing spins in a Cirrus would be like doing
motocross in a Ferrari.

"Dave" > wrote

> WHAT were they thinking? (or were they) Surprising from a company with
> long experience in aviation GPS units....

Myself, I don't think it is too surprising.

You have the hardware gurus with the aviation permanent mount receiver
department. Then you have the hardware guys for the handheld units. Lots
of difference in the hardware, most likely different people. The software
is the most common thing between the two, but the software people don't care
what is running it, as long as the unit is capable of running it, which is
what the hardware guys can tell them.

The aviation guys know what they have to have for permanent mount antennae
on airplanes. No magnets, right?

The handhelds have antennae in the units, with a few having the added
capability of an added antenna. Who uses those? For one, the XM guys, and
the car GPS receiver guys. People with steel car roofs, thus the magnets.
The XM people say, "hey, why not use a basic design we already use." The
left hand didn't anticipate the different needs of the right hand.

So how long does it take to realize there is a big problem, design a
different antenna, get it to manufacturing and distribute it? My guess is 6
months, minimum. Added to that the fact that they already have made a big
production run of the wrong antennae, which they would no doubt like to
sell; otherwise it takes directly away from the per unit profit. These
people kill to save pennies per unit, but now they are going to have to take
a hit for several tens of dollars per unit? Someone up top is *not* a happy
camper, at Garmin, I'll bet.
--
Jim in NC

"cjcampbell" > wrote\

> It was cheaper to design, test and certify a BRS than it was to take
> the plane up and do a couple of spins? I think not. The CAPS tests
> themselves required the destruction of at least one airframe. Spin
> testing just has to show recovery after a couple times around.

I wouldn't know for sure about the cost. It was my impression that it was
very expensive and time consuming to spin certify , and spin resistance
certify a new design.

> The reason the Cirrus was not spin tested is because it is very stall
> resistant. Any maneuver that could throw this plane into a spin might
> be so violent as to be unrecoverable. There have been accidents
> attributed to people trying deliberately to spin the Cirrus. There is
> no reason to attempt to spin the airplane anyway. It is unlikely to
> enter a spin accidentally, so it is not as if it is a needed emergency
> procedure.

Granted about the spin resistance. I think the other thing that some people
are overlooking is the brother's goals in a new GA airplane, which was to
make it safer than all other GA craft, in giving an out in continued VFR
into IMC, departures, loss of engine and a dozen other problems that
sometimes come up. That was real important to them.

> Some people claim the airplane will successfully recover from at least
> an initial spin. Fine. But why bother? Cirrus strongly discourages it.
> It is not really certified for it. There is no training advantage to
> it. If I want to do spins then give me an airplane where they will be
> fun; even Aerobat. Doing spins in a Cirrus would be like doing
> motocross in a Ferrari.

<Chuckle> How true!
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 at 22:05:05 in message
>, Dave
> wrote:

>But, alas, I am also having difficulty in understanding why Garmin
>would install magnets in their remote GPS antenna that commonly is
>placed on the cowl/glareshield of of what is usually an ALUMINUM or
>COMPOSITE aircraft.

Perhaps because it is almost the same as the one I have had for some
time that goes on the roof of my car? There it fits snug and never
seems to move until I take it off. :-)
--
David CL Francis

But, alas, I am also having difficulty in understanding why Garmin
would install magnets in their remote GPS antenna that commonly is
placed on the cowl/glareshield of of what is usually an ALUMINUM or
COMPOSITE aircraft.

It could be that those antennas are sometimes used on car roofs.....

David Johnson