Cirrus Lands via Parachute in Nantucket

Owen Rogers wrote:
Looks like another save for BRS and Cirrus.

Apparently a Cirrus was attempting to land ACK VFR last night when
they ran into weather (fog and low visibility after sunset on the
island are common in the summer). They pulled the Ballistic Recovery
System parachute about 5 miles northeast of ACK.

The two aboard had minor injuries but will be ok. Nobody was injured
on the ground.

Here is a news link:
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...180319/-1/NEWS

Other reports said that it was a Cirrus, although the make/model
hasn't been confirmed yet.

It's well known that countinued VFR into IMC is a leading cause of accidents
but I didn't realize that with the Cirrus an accident was required.

Aluckyguess wrote:
He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the
plane.


So do those flying Cirrus have the required hood time waived and an aren't
taught to do a 180 in IMC?

Obviously a climbing 180 would have been in order.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
If a pilot pulls the chute because he judges an uncontrolled
parachute descent to be less risky than trying to keep the plane
upright for a few minutes in simple instrument cruise flight, then
he has judged himself to have less than the minimum required
competence for a private pilot.


That's BS, plain and simple. The instrument flying requirement is
required for the test, barely. There is no requirement at all to keep
it current. Otherwise, all certified pilots would be instrument
pilots.

I've never had a BFR where the CFI didn't put me back under the hood.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Every time someone uses the chute on a Cirrus, we get people second
guessing
the decision.

Every decision everyone makes is a candidate for being second
guessed.

Instead of "second guessed", I'd rather use the word "analyzed". Such
is how we refine our learning.

I hope no one is saying pilot decisions are not open for discussion
or debate.

And for criticism or even derision if so warranted, or praise if so
warranted.

Having a chute is not an excuse for careless or reckless bahavior,
just as seatbelts and airbags are not an excuse for using brickwalls
to stop in lieu of keeping your brakes maintained.

It seems that pulling chutes on these planes is becoming the norm for any
out of the ordinary, potentially dangerous situation. If this keeps up it is
going to put Cirrus out of business because the cost of insurance will be
equal to the cost of the airplane.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Ron,

The problem is that the BRS seems to be a last resort for poor
decision making.


And death would be a better option? I simply don't get the attitude
behind all the statements in this vain.

No the option is make better decisions in the first place. The BRS is doing
what many here thought it would do. Remove some of the reason NOT to make
bad decisions.

Judah wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. A competent pilot is not completely
immune to the possibility of making a mistake, including the mistake
of accidentally flying into IMC.

But if flying in uncomplicated instrument conditions is something
that a private pilot simply doesn't know how to do, then the pilot is
missing an important skill that's required for the pilot's initial
and recurring certification. Lacking an entire area of expected
competence is not the same as just making a mistake.

I think your parallel between IMC and spins is incredibly accurate.
Recoveries from both are typically taught in the basic pilot training
PTS, but use only simulation. So why do you believe that recovery
from one is beyond a normal pilot's responsibility and the other is
not?

The Cirrus POH states that the PROPER and ONLY way to recover from a spin is
pull the chute.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:06:56 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

It seems that pulling chutes on these planes is becoming the norm for any
out of the ordinary, potentially dangerous situation. If this keeps up it is
going to put Cirrus out of business because the cost of insurance will be
equal to the cost of the airplane.

I'm not sure what the break-even point would be. Let's assume the average net
loss is about $300,000 for every chute deployment (depreciated cost of aircraft
minus salvage value).

What's the average pay-out per *fatal* Cirrus accident? Remember, the typical
occupants aren't going to be convenience store clerks. They're going to be
people who can afford half-million-dollar airplanes. Let's say the total payout
is $5 million.

This means that if only one out of 15 chute deployments prevents a
wrongful-death lawsuit, the insurance companies come out on top.

Note that almost all CAPS deployments, so far, have prevented any serious injury
as well. So that $300K cost for each deployment is also offset by the reduced
need to pay medical bills and/or settle lawsuits in non-fatal accidents as well.

Sounds like a good bet to me.

Ron Wanttaja

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the
plane.


So do those flying Cirrus have the required hood time waived and an aren't
taught to do a 180 in IMC?

Obviously a climbing 180 would have been in order.

Maybe to you, I wasn't in the plane. You have no idea what happened. Maybe
he was having chest pains from the stress of the flight. Maybe the g1000 (if
equipped) just went blue screen.
What we are trying to point out is we were not there the PIC made the
decision and he is still alive so who can question that.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:06:56 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

It seems that pulling chutes on these planes is becoming the norm
for any out of the ordinary, potentially dangerous situation. If
this keeps up it is going to put Cirrus out of business because the
cost of insurance will be equal to the cost of the airplane.

I'm not sure what the break-even point would be. Let's assume the
average net loss is about $300,000 for every chute deployment
(depreciated cost of aircraft minus salvage value).

What's the average pay-out per *fatal* Cirrus accident? Remember,
the typical occupants aren't going to be convenience store clerks.
They're going to be people who can afford half-million-dollar
airplanes. Let's say the total payout is $5 million.

This means that if only one out of 15 chute deployments prevents a
wrongful-death lawsuit, the insurance companies come out on top.

Note that almost all CAPS deployments, so far, have prevented any
serious injury as well. So that $300K cost for each deployment is
also offset by the reduced need to pay medical bills and/or settle
lawsuits in non-fatal accidents as well.

Sounds like a good bet to me.

Ron Wanttaja

I was talking about the pilot/owners hull insurance not the manufacture's
liability. Since we are talking about a four place plane normally flown by
the owner of the plane with his family and or friends the liability is going
to be much less a factor.

Aluckyguess wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the
plane.


So do those flying Cirrus have the required hood time waived and an
aren't taught to do a 180 in IMC?

Obviously a climbing 180 would have been in order.

Maybe to you, I wasn't in the plane. You have no idea what happened.
Maybe he was having chest pains from the stress of the flight. Maybe
the g1000 (if equipped) just went blue screen.
What we are trying to point out is we were not there the PIC made the
decision and he is still alive so who can question that.

With all those maybes let's add another maybe he didn't pull the chute and
it just shot out by itself.

I think the point of this and all other topics like it is to discuss what we
do know and try to learn from it. If we limit the discussion to only things
we are 100% certain of this is going to be a very quiet newsgroup. For there
to be any meaningful dialogue here we have to assume that the information we
do have is correct. When we find that it isn't or are given new information
we can adjust our comments accordingly.