Another SR22

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)

Ron Lee wrote:
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

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?

The parachute system absolves the pilot of being responsible and
making sound judgments about when to fly or not fly BUT they must know
when to activate the parachute.

Why would you jump to that conclusion? Maybe he thought that he could
descend into a nearby airport. According to Flightaware, he was going
from Reno (KRNO) to Lake Tahoe (KTVL). The flight path ends near
either Carson (KCXP), which has a 5900' runway, or Minden (KMEV), which
has a 7400' runway. There are at least these other possibilities:

1) I think the Cirrus POH indicates to deploy CAPS in the event a safe
landing cannot be made. If the pilot thought that he could keep his
speed up and get into KCXP or KMEV, he may have been tempted to attempt
a landing and stalled with no chance of recovery, such as in a steep
turn. CAPS is to be used as a last resort, such as in complete IMC or
inhospitable terrain.

2) CAPS can be deployed only after getting the speed down to about 133
knots. His cruise speed would probably have been about 180 knots. If
he decided to deploy the CAPS, his wing may have stalled while he
attempted to get his airspeed down to CAPS deployment speed.

3) He may have been above Lake Tahoe, which is big, deep, and cold. If
I thought the plane is flyable, I'd probably head close to shore before
pulling the CAPS handle as I'm not sufficiently confident of my ability
to swim long distances or tread extremely cold water for an extended
period.

He may have been stupid in departing into known icing, but I didn't
check yesterday's METARs or PIREPs in the area, and so don't know
whether icing was forecast or known. However, we don't yet know why he
didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.

There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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)

rps wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

3) He may have been above Lake Tahoe, which is big, deep, and cold. If
I thought the plane is flyable, I'd probably head close to shore before
pulling the CAPS handle as I'm not sufficiently confident of my ability
to swim long distances or tread extremely cold water for an extended
period.

I'll retract the third possibility as Flightaware clearly shows that he
was not over the lake.

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

He may have been stupid in departing into known icing, but I didn't
check yesterday's METARs or PIREPs in the area, and so don't know
whether icing was forecast or known. However, we don't yet know why he
didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.


WAUS45 KKCI 251345 SLCZ WA 251345 AIRMET ZULU UPDT 2 FOR ICE AND FRZLVL
VALID UNTIL 252000 AIRMET ICE...ID MT WY NV UT CO AZ NM FROM GTF TO 20WNW
MLS TO AKO TO TBE TO INW TO ELY TO BOI TO GTF OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN
FRZLVL AND FL200. FRZLVLS 050-080 OVR NRN AND WRN PTNS AREA RSG TO 100-120
OVR SRN AND ERN PTS. CONDS SPRDG NEWD DURG PD...CONTG BYD 20Z THRU 02Z.
ELSW...NO SGFNT ICE EXP OUTSIDE CNVTV ACT. FRZLVL...SFC-080...N AND W OF
FMG-OAL-BCE-JAC-BOY-GGW LN  ...080-120...N AND W OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN
 ...120-140...S AND E OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN ..

WAUS45 KKCI 251945 SLCZ WA 251945 AIRMET ZULU UPDT 3 FOR ICE AND FRZLVL
VALID UNTIL 260200 AIRMET ICE...ID MT WY NV UT CO AZ NM FROM HLN TO MLS TO
CYS TO LVS TO 20W SJN TO PGS TO TWF TO HLN OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN
FRZLVL AND FL220. FRZLVLS 050-080 OVR NRN AND WRN PTNS AREA RSG TO 100-120
OVR SRN AND ERN PTNS. CONDS SPRDG NEWD DURG PD...CONTG BYD 02Z THRU 08Z.
ELSW...NO SGFNT ICE EXP OUTSIDE CNVTV ACT. FRZLVL...SFC-080...N AND W OF
FMG-OAL-BCE-JAC-BOY-GGW LN  ...080-120...N AND W OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN
 ...120-140...S AND E OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN ....

METAR KHND 251856Z 03011KT 10SM CLR 21/05 A3001 RMK AO2 T02110050 SLP129

METAR KIGM 251859Z AUTO 23018G21KT 10SM CLR 19/10 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP108
T01890100 TSNO

METAR KINS 251856Z AUTO 35010G15KT 10SM BKN085 18/M08 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP149
T01831083

METAR KDRA 251853Z 03013KT 10SM FEW070 SCT090 19/M11 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP150
T01891106

While that has happened there have also been cases where non-pilots were
talked down when the exact same thing happened to the pilot. The difference
being that the plane was flyable again when landed without a chute.

Airsafety had a report earlier this year of a non-pilot landing a Twin
Commander but the link is broken.

http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW060215A.pdf


AOPA has http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pinch_hitter/flash.cfm which if you are a
non-pilot and fly with a GA pilot with any regularity you should check out.



"BDS" wrote in message
...
There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of
a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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)

rps wrote: brevity snip

2) CAPS can be deployed only after getting the speed down to about 133
knots. His cruise speed would probably have been about 180 knots. If
he decided to deploy the CAPS, his wing may have stalled while he
attempted to get his airspeed down to CAPS deployment speed.

I've never flown in icing conditions... but ISTM he'd be able to slow
his airspeed to 133kts. via the elevator and flaps... as long as the
wing was still flying, that is. The Cirrus site mentions CAPS has been
"flight tested -to- 135kts".

The POH reads: Once the decision is made to deploy CAPS, the following
actions
should be taken:
1. Airspeed.......MINIMUM POSSIBLE

The maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 KIAS.
Reducing airspeed allows minimum parachute loads and prevents
structural overload and possible parachute failure.
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicec...InfoManual.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/sz3sj

No mention that CAPS -can't- or -won't- deploy above 133kts.

However, we don't yet know why he
didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.

We don't yet know if he yanked the handle and it didn't deploy. Also
from the POH:

· WARNING ·
Jerking or rapidly pulling the activation T-handle will greatly
increase the pull forces required to activate the rocket. Use a firm
and steady pulling motion - a "chin-up" type pull enhances
successful activation.

Pretty tough to remember -that- as the ground is rushing toward you and
the cabin is filling with odors, I'll bet...
-----

- gpsman

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


Seems like pilots overestimate the performance of the aircraft to me. With
the chute as "backup" and the advanced electronics I think pilots are
entering into a false sense of security that this advanced aircraft can
handle wahtever you throw at it. Also it seems like Cirrus is promoting the
aircraft to low time, high cash pilots, it is the new Bonanza! I'll stick to
the C172 and occasional trips around the practice area in a C182. Maybe I am
a wuss but I'm not wild about any aircraft in IMC weather that doesn't have
the performance to climb to 25,000 feet. Flying in the **** with a small
performance envelope is not inside my comfort zone.

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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

Gravity.

I thought Cirrus aircraft were exempted from gravity.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.