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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the article is perhaps erroneous. It alludes to
inflight "emergencies." My knowledge of the facts in these two incidents is inadequate to properly evaluate them. However, I have read things that bring up probing questions. The incident that occurred over mountains was the first. I live just east of Pikes Peak (Rockies) and for almost 16 years they have been a barrier. I had neither the training nor the proper aircraft to "Go West young man." Last year I took a mountain flying course to handle the training part (RV-6A takes care of the plane). One thing they stress is do not fly over mountains at night and yet the Cirrus pilot reportedly did. The other noteworthy report about this incident (again if factually reported) is that he encountered severe turbulence. Was turbulence forecast or to be expected? I check winds aloft forecasts and cancel mountain excursions if beyond my comfort level. Could he not execute a 180 degree turn and get to calmer air? The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to safely land mere minutes after take-off? I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it is a last resort for pilot incompetence? Ron Lee |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , C J Campbell
wrote: The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to safely land mere minutes after take-off? The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not. One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually failed or not. I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds. What ever happened to "needle, ball, airspeed"? Pilot's lose their gyros and claim instrument failure. If you practice partial panel, you can get the airplane down safely. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ArtP wrote:
The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not. You are right. I would have significant problems with no instruments. But then I am not instrument rated and I avoid IMC conditions. My only experience with IMC was with an instructor in the right seat. Even with instruments, my ears were telling me bad things compared to the instruments. But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft? Ron Lee |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ron,
But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft? Jeeze! "His statement" is as much guesswork as is everybodys with regard to these accident. That's what accident *investigations* are for! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtP" wrote in message ... only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not. We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was in contact with the controller by radio. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:35:06 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote: We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was in contact with the controller by radio. 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. |
|
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 |