Another SR22

On 26 Oct 2006 10:03:56 -0700, "gpsman" wrote
in .com:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicec...22/pdf/20880-=
001InfoManual.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/sz3sj

Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
I thought it was for use in spin recovery.

Ron Lee wrote:

Sounds like pilot stupidity. Wasn't he aware that the parachute
system offers to save them from doing other stupid things like flying
into icing conditions?

Wasn't this accident close to the location of last year's Cirrus icing
accident (where in that case the 'chute was pulled and ripped from the
aircraft)?

--
Peter

Does anyone have any info on whether the plane had TKS installed. I
know it's not "known-ice" but hopefully it could help extricate somone
from a situation like this.

--Dan


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:49 -0700, Terry wrote
in :

What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.


It looks like that slick wing doesn't like ice:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...a/01_121LD.txt

Terry wrote:
What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.

I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas. They
do seem to make more of a stir when they do because of the national
attention focused on them. Now that Cirrus has overtaken Cessna in
production the fleet is getting larger fairly quickly.

I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas.

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.
It's like the section of the road where a pedestrian had been killed
jaywalking. A crossing with lights markings etc. was instituted and
the number of accidents rose immediately. That's because people
crossing were not careful anymore as they were when jaywalking.

Gerd

Gwengler,

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes!

Says who?

Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.

Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

I knew you couldn't let this go. Anyway:
You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes!

Says who?

With "this" I meant that Cirrus and comparable airplanes have the same
accident rates. From the Cirrus website: "CAPS™ revolutionized
general aviation safety by providing an alternative measure of safety
to occupants, similar in theory to the role of airbags in automobiles.
No other certified general aviation aircraft manufacturer in the world
provides this safety feature as standard equipment."
I can only understand the notion of "revolutionized general aviation
safety" as having a better accident record than other manufacturers.
Therefore, as a direct answer to your question, Cirrus says so.

Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.

Gerd

Gwengler,

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.


I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

gwengler wrote:
I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas.

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.

Agreed. The responsibility always falls on the pilot to not fly into
known icing conditions (in a non-icing equipped acft), but the BRS
system should be an adequate back-up in case of that decision making
process breaking down. I don't know if measuring Cirrus and Cessna
accidents makes for a valid comparison if many of the Cirrus accidents
don't involve BRS deployment. It only works when you pull the handle...

Kingfish schrieb:

Agreed. The responsibility always falls on the pilot to not fly into
known icing conditions (in a non-icing equipped acft), but the BRS
system should be an adequate back-up in case of that decision making
process breaking down.

And this is exactly the dangerous mindset. When affordable handheld GPS
units became available, I've read quite a few accident reports where VFR
pilots took off in marginal conditions and navigated GPS based "ad hoc
IFR" into terrain. I expect to read a couple of accident reports in the
near future where pilots fly their Cirri into hostile conditions for
which the plane wasn't built, thinking they could rely on that chute as
an "adequate backup". Hardly a design flaw.

Stefan