If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtP" wrote in message
... Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all electric. As far as knowing what happened, we do have the pilot's statement and without out proof to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt it. I thought this particular Cirrus had a vacuum system.. in any event, even the all-electric Cirrus airplanes have a backup AI and the pilot was talking to ATC so he did have electrical power remaining. It would thus seem that an expedited ASR or PAR would have been an option. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
... I don't think that is ever the question. If the pilot in command thinks it is, then it is. I can't believe you're suggesting the speech at the grave containing the words "Ah, but he chose the correct option" - which, in effect, you do. Where DO you draw the line at pulling the parachute "just to be safe" ? How about lost com with nav still operational? How about moderate turbulence? How about a door that pops open. Surely you will agree that there is SOME point at which a pilot should be able to handle a situation without resorting to a parachute. If you do not agree, then that attitude will push insurance costs on a Cirrus to the point that the airplane is no longer insurable. If you do agree, then the question shifts not to "if the PIC thinks it is, then it is" but rather to a discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and what situations are not appropriate. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... If there is one thing that galls me it is so-called pilots who think that every safety improvement is a bad thing. What pilot posted that every safety improvement is a bad thing? I do not recall any such post. The fact is that all airplane modifications have benefits and disadvantages that need to be weighed against one another. It is not clear yet that the Cirrus is either safer or more dangerous than traditional steam-gauge, non-parachute airplanes. There are reasonable arguments on both side. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"John Galban" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "EDR" wrote in message ... I have to go out on the limb a little and say that I somewhat agree with Lee. I find the instruction in my area (and probably true for most of the country) to be very lacking in basic aircraft handling. The best indicator is to watch how a pilot handles the controls on the ground. When taxiing, does the pilot hold the yoke full aft? When taxiing around, does the pilot use the propper aileron input? If that is your measure of good instruction, then you probably could use some remedial instruction yourself. The elevator should be neutral or down when taxiing, depending on wind direction. That's a little harsh, isn't it? Are you sure that the only "correct" way to taxi is the method you stated above? When I read Eric's post I assumed that he was probably based at a soft grass strip, where taxiing with the yoke full aft is the best way to keep your prop off the ground. I assumed he was talking about whenever he saw somebody taxiing. If he meant some special case he should have said so. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:25:00 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote: I thought this particular Cirrus had a vacuum system.. in any event, even the all-electric Cirrus airplanes have a backup AI and the pilot was talking to ATC so he did have electrical power remaining. It would thus seem that an expedited ASR or PAR would have been an option. That is assuming he had a working attitude instrument. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
ArtP,
Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all electric. Oh, come on! They went to all electric, because VACUUM SUCKS! t is stone age technology. Lancair did the same. Yes, we know by now you didn't like your Cirrus. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Richard,
but rather to a discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and what situations are not appropriate. Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing. THEN we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to pilot. And as for the two accidents - we don't know enough about them to judge it. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Unfortunately, you are buying into exactly the reasons for the Cirrus' poor
history. First, the chute is not an option, it is a necessity. When the airplane reaches a particular state or meets a certain set of parameters, your only possible course of action is to deploy the BRS. When you reach a particular state, if you are in an Archer or a 172, you can recover. But if you are in a Cirrus, you absolutely must deploy the BRS; there is no recovery. Second, you made the statement: "THEN we can start discussing when to pull it (the chute)." Unfortunately, it is not a matter that can be discussed. Again, when the airplane reaches a particular state or meets a certain set of parameters, your only possible course of action is to deploy the BRS. There is no room for discussion. Now let me give you an example that is in no way indicative of the operation of the Cirrus. You go out to fly a new airplane. On the panel is a placard reading: "Nose-up angles greater than 30 degrees will render this aircraft uncontrollable and control cannot be regained. The BRS must be deployed immediately or it will not be effective". So, you're flying along and exceed a 30 degree nose-up attitude, and you get a warning horn. A panel scan tells you that you have exceeded the allowed angle. So what do you do? Unfortunately, at least half of the pilots will say: "This is bull****! I can recover from a 30 degree nose up attitude! So they try to recover, discover that the placard was correct, and deploy the BRS. And they find out the placard is correct again; they have deployed the BRS too late for it to be effective, and they end up breaking the airplane. There's really not a problem with the Cirrus, the problem is with pilots who either didn't educate themselves about the airplane, or who think they know more than the people who designed and built the plane. "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Richard, but rather to a discussion of what specific situations are appropriate to pull the chute and what situations are not appropriate. Yep. IF we can agree that to have the chute as an option is a good thing. THEN we can start discussing when to pull it. And that will vary from pilot to pilot. And as for the two accidents - we don't know enough about them to judge it. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Does anyone know what kind of training Cirrus pilots get in terms of
when to use the parachute? I'm curious to know how it would compare to the training military pilots get for using an ejection seat (which I'm only slightly familiar with). Does either training syllabus deal with gray areas, or do they both stick to something along the lines of "The parachute/ejection seat shall be used under the following circumstances..." I would think that there is a fairly big psychological hurdle to overcome for using the parachute or an ejection seat since you are effectively saying there's nothing more I can do, time to leave it up to fate. I'm guessing that the military tailors its training to overcome this hurdle, whereas a company like Cirrus has to avoid addressing gray areas for liability reasons. But that's just a guess. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | Dennis | Owning | 170 | May 19th 04 04:44 PM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |