SR22 crash involved racecar driver

There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

unicate wrote:

can't see who wrote this:

Maybe I am too dense but if icing conditions were forecast as likely
doesn't it make sense to AVOID the ice in the first place? The
parachute should not be a substitute for proper flight planning and
judgement.


Maybe this is a dumb question, but I heard someone say if the plane
can't fly because of icing, the parachute won't work because of the
icing, either. I'm not a skydiver or scientist ... is that true? Is a
parachute of no value when there's icing?

The Visitor wrote:
There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, unicate wrote:

The Visitor wrote:
There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html

Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, unicate wrote:

The Visitor wrote:
There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when
deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html

Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing, and
forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?

Peter

wrote in message
...
The Visitor wrote:
There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

Bogus answers.

The amount of time under chute is brief, and significant icing would not be
likely in that amount of time. Even if ice did build up somewhat, this is not
an airfoil parachute, like some skydivers use, so performance degradation would
be minimal, most likely.

The real answer is that the parachute has not been tested to not tear away, at
deployment speeds above 133 knots (I think, but that is close) so there is some
question at what speed it would tear away. Your are a test pilot at speeds
above the maximum tested speed, but it might hold and save you at speeds higher
than that. The fact that icing was significant would mean that the plane has to
fly faster to stay in the air without stalling, so it might not have been
possible to slow down enough to get under the deployment speed. It seems like a
intentional flat spin would slow you down enough, to me, but that is just an
idea.

The real rub is that because a totaled airplane is likely to be the result of
deployment, and saving your life is not guaranteed, so a pilot is liable to try
to fly it down and land, and if the plane stalls and spins in at too low of an
altitude, there is no time for the chute to save you. This is a possible
scenario in this accident.

We don't know why he flew into the icing. It is obviously best not to fly into
icing, thinking the chute will save you. Anything after that is a gamble.
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Dohm" wrote:

Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing, and
forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?

Peter

Not to me. I won't fly anywhere near any of those.

Ron Lee

Peter Clark wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, unicate wrote:
Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute
could sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute
itself is susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html

Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

I searched the NTSB database for non-fatal Cirrus accidents that mentioned
icing and this looks like it may be the report for the above mentioned
accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18X00086&key=1

The narrative makes it clear the pilot had gonzo amounts of experience, yet
seemed oblivious to the on-board XM Satellite Radio AIRMET updates and
relied on weather reports that were out-of-date when he departed.

This pilot doesn't fit the alleged pattern of low-time but financially
well-off pilot that people are accusing Cirrus of marketing their product.

Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing,
and
forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?

Peter

Not to me. I won't fly anywhere near any of those.

Ron Lee

I should have been a bit more thorough in my post.

The question as asked was regulatory; but I had neglected to ask whether the
icing conditions became known as a result of the Cirrus pilot's pirep. A
search revealed that the icing conditions were predicted by the NWS,
although transmitted in a manner other than expected, and previously known
to ATC. All in all, I was left with more questions than answers and much
food for thought.

Peter

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:37:18 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, unicate wrote:
Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute
could sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute
itself is susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html

Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

I searched the NTSB database for non-fatal Cirrus accidents that mentioned
icing and this looks like it may be the report for the above mentioned
accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18X00086&key=1

The narrative makes it clear the pilot had gonzo amounts of experience, yet
seemed oblivious to the on-board XM Satellite Radio AIRMET updates and
relied on weather reports that were out-of-date when he departed.

This pilot doesn't fit the alleged pattern of low-time but financially
well-off pilot that people are accusing Cirrus of marketing their product.

Just for the record, I was only addressing the question of whether a
parachute would deal with being pulled in icing and getting the
aircraft back down in one piece, I'm not going anywhere near the
marketing debate.

And of course we now have a sample of exactly one where it's known
that there was severe icing and a chute was popped - who knows if the
next one would be as successful...

unicate wrote:

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

Yep even a half-minute in icing is dangerous because it is an unknown. I
would guess totally untested. Many chutes have airflow around and
'through' them (important, it maintains a pressure gradient that way)
and will ice up. And the air flowing through them is actually needed for
them to keep their canopy.

If the ice was bad enough to bring down an aircraft, I would guess a
chute could get plugged in a heartbeat, or two. Flying through colud
tops in my plane I have gotten easily 3/16 of an inch in five seconds.
(disclaimer for the bashers, yes it was legal, known icing package and
ifr clearance) But I was going faster than a chute. But you plug that
chute, it could easily cave in. What could plug it, a 16th, a 32?