Another Cirrus Down

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)