Cirrus Float Plane

CNN noon newscast showed video footage of a Cirrus with parachute
deployed floating in the retention pond of an apartment complex in
Indiannapolis. Four people onboard, all survived.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
CNN noon newscast showed video footage of a Cirrus with parachute
deployed floating in the retention pond of an apartment complex in
Indiannapolis. Four people onboard, all survived.

http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?id=56365

Just bought yesterday???!

-------------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

"john smith" wrote in message
...
CNN noon newscast showed video footage of a Cirrus with parachute
deployed floating in the retention pond of an apartment complex in
Indiannapolis. Four people onboard, all survived.

http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?id=56365

Just bought yesterday???!

-------------------------------------
DW



The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

4 Hurt in Plane Crash Near Eagle Creek
8/28/2006

By John Bartholomew and Cheryl Miller

A plane headed to Hilton Head, South Carolina crashed shortly into a
Westside retention pond shortly after takeoff from Eagle Creek Airport late
Monday morning.

“A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I heard the
noise, there was a parachute,” Mike Cook, who lives in the subdivision near
21st and Raceway, told WIBC News.

Several people who live in the neighborhood jumped into the pond and managed
to get the four people on the plane out of the aircraft and out of the
water.

“We asked them if they were OK, and they said, ‘No,’ so we told them it was
going to be alright, so we got them unbuckled and got them to shore,” Andrea
Smith, one of the first people to reach the plane, told WIBC’s John
Bartholomew.

Officials say the four – the pilot, his wife, his son, and the son’s
girlfriend – were all taken to the hospital. Emergency officials at the
scene say the pilot was unconscious and in critical condition, and at least
one other member of the group was listed in serious condition.

Officials had not released the names of the victims, but they say the family
lives in the Indianapolis area.

Wayne Township Fire Chief Gene Konzen said the parachute witnesses saw was
apparently part of the safety equipment on the plane for emergencies. He
says it appears the pilot guided the plane into the retention pond to avoid
the houses.

The FAA says this was a brand new plane that had just been purchased
yesterday.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing in
the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, “A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute”. If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane was
in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of ensuring a
landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under the
parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses? There's
nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and in fact
the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing
in the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, “A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute”. If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane
was in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of
ensuring a landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under
the parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses?
There's nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and
in fact the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete


If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look. Also, are the chutes prone to deploying
after a crash. If so I wouldn't want to make many hard landings.

The quote about seeing the chute could have easily meant, "...there was a
parachute,IN THE WATER."

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look.

Planes land in the water without significant apparent structural damage all
the time. They still wind up being a total loss, either because of internal
damage or water damage or something like that. But you can't tell from a
photo how an airplane wound up in the water.

Also, are the chutes prone to deploying after a crash. If so I wouldn't
want to make many hard landings.

The parachute doesn't deploy automatically. However, the pilot very well
could have attempted to deploy the parachute once over the water, but too
low to have much success. In addition, I'm sure that if it hasn't happened
yet, there's bound to eventually be a pilot who pulls the deployment handle
*after* the crash. After all, plenty of pilots who land gear-up attempt to
lower the gear (or at least move the gear handle) once the airplane has some
to a stop.

Again, the fact that the parachute was out doesn't mean that the pilot had
nothing to do with the airplane missing the house.

The quote about seeing the chute could have easily meant, "...there was a
parachute,IN THE WATER."

No, it couldn't have. The witness specifically says he saw the parachute
"over the rooftops where I heard the noise".

But even if your alternative quote was possible, that's not the question.
We're not talking about what it could have been. We're talking about your
claim to KNOW what happened, and to KNOW that the pilot was not involved in
missing the houses. Do you have information to support that claim, or don't
you?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing
in the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, "A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute". If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane
was in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of
ensuring a landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under
the parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses?
There's nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and
in fact the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340

Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open and
working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a mess.

---------------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340

Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open and
working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a mess.

From that link, it strongly suggests that the parachute was in fact deployed
only at the last minute. That would easily allow for the possibility of the
pilot having intentionally avoided the residences.

Of course, none of that explains why the pilot thought to use the parachute
at all, if the airplane was still reasonably controllable. A controlled
landing, even in the water, would likely have allowed everyone to survive,
including the pilot.

I'm not against the use of the BRS, but I have to admit this event appears
at least initially to be a good example of how having a BRS installed
complicates the emergency decision-making, and how it offers a new way for
the pilot to screw up that decision-making. Seems like the two valid
choices are "deploy the parachute with sufficient altitude for it to be
useful" or "fly the airplane and attempt an emergency landing", while the
pilot chose a third invalid choice of "attempt to deploy the parachute too
late, failing to provide a safe descent rate while preventing effective
control of the airplane during the landing".

Pete

Peter,

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.


Don't forget that this is one of the few "parachute landing" into water. It
had been speculated before that these would be much harder since there is
likely no cushioning effect from the collapsing landing gear.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Seems odd. Usually when you buy a factory new plane your first few days
are training. If nothing else, the insurance company would want to see
some time in this new plane before the owner flew it off.

-Robert


Darkwing wrote:
"john smith" wrote in message
...
CNN noon newscast showed video footage of a Cirrus with parachute
deployed floating in the retention pond of an apartment complex in
Indiannapolis. Four people onboard, all survived.

http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?id=56365

Just bought yesterday???!

-------------------------------------
DW