Cirrus parachute fails to stop fatal crash

Agreed 100%. But that's the case with every airplane.

You may be right on the altitude to deploy CAPS. I haven't been in the Cirrus since 2008 so my memory is fuzzy.

I'm at PDK also. I hangar at Epps. Have we met?

 

I keep mine in the main hangar at Epps...tail # ending in HA. I don't think we've met...at least not officially!

 

What's wrong with this statement?
FWIW the crash site is well away and past the intended destination.

 

Not following

 

If you are flying from anyplace in Indiana with the intention of landing in Wheaton, IL - there is no reason in the world you should come crashing to the ground in Crystal Lake, IL (well North and a bit West of Wheaton...)

 

When Cirrus first came out with the parachute and all the glass panels, everyone thought that this was a new concept in safety and aircraft manufactures tried to keep up with Cirrus. For years most pilots believed that the parchute was added for safety. It wasn't until a few years ago that cirrus had an AD on the parachute straps which had to inspected or replaced and really only Cirrus could do this job properly. I beleived this AD would cost about the same as getting the aircraft's engine overhauled. Owners started to say I just wont keep the parchute system in there if its going to cost this much for the AD. Then we heard about that you could not disable the parachute because during design testing for certification with the FAA, Cirrus could not recover from a spin if one was entered and the parchute must be working in order to recover from the spin and to meet the type certification. Cirrus got away with having a lousy airframe design (my opinion) and having a parachute installed for the sole purpose of meeting the FAA's spin recovery testing. Cirrus changed their design with some leading edges to be spin resistant but once a spin was entered the only approve recovery procedure for recovering from a spin according to the POH is pull the chute. Just some info on this aircraft and nothing should be taken from this involving the crash.

 

What does that have to do with my original comment?

 

Per the SR22 POH:

Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency. Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful deployment.

In light of this I was trained that if you can get the aircraft straight, level and slow you can probably deploy at 500 ft AGL. In a perfect world of course. Demonstrated altitude loss if in a spin is 920 ft for deployment per the POH.

Never heard 3000 ft.

It is all speculation as to what happened to this pilot, especially if you are trying to analyze from press versions of the "facts."

 

If you can get the airplane straight, level, and slow, why wouldn't you just land?

 

You are in IMC with no way to make a visual approach and you lost your engine. Night and you just lost an engine and can't see if the highway you want to land on has power lines. You just took off from an urban airport lost the engine and cannot safely turn to a safe landing area or tried to turn and know you won't make it but you have 500 ft altitude. You have a control surface problem with your rudder. You have a medical problem like heart attack or something else that you are worried is going to incapacitate you before you can land safely. iNone of these are inconceivable to me and I'd personally pull the CAPS handle in each one I think.

 

1. Don't fly at night.

2. Don't fly in crap weather

Follow these 2 rules and you just eliminated 99.9% of what can kill you in an airplane. You don't need a parachute to be safe in an airplane. You just need to make good decisions.

But yes, I too would use CAPS in those situations if I had to. But I would never be in those situations in the first place. I fly over 300 hours a year and use my plane for business constantly and these rules have never messed up my travel plans.

 

You are a very fortunate man to be able to fly for business and never fly at night or in IMC. My business hours can end after night and take place on cloudy days. In fact my last 3 flights as a pretty new VFR pilot required landings after dark.

 

You make your decisions and you take your chances. Like is said, remove night flying and foul weather from your routine and you have to really try to kill yourself in an airplane.

I'm an IFR pilot and I stay current. But here in the southeast united states, we must have 320+ days of blue sky sunshine a year. If the weather is lousy right now, I'll bet it won't be In a few hours.

Also, with the accuracy of weather reporting nowadays, you know what the weather will be like tomorrow. Leave a day early.

 

Agreed. But if your schedule matters for business then you must either not fly private or fly at night and in IMC. I simply don't have the ability to move my travel plans by a day if weather and daylight do not permit. Like I said you are very fortunate.

 

We own airplanes. We don't have to be anywhere. ;-)

99% of my flying is business.

 

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be flying a piston single.

 

On the back of most aviation magazines Cessna has an advertisement for their piston powered Corvalis TT which says "I can't afford to wait it out" referring to the weather. I think that ad is dangerous.

 

Why?

 

Why?

 

Why do I think the Corvalis ad is dangerous? Quoting Jason1st: "Don't fly at night. Don't fly in crap weather." "Follow these 2 rules and you just eliminated 99.9% of what can kill you in an airplane." "You just need to make good decisions." I say Amen to that. This ad in my opinion is saying throw all those things that Jason1st said out the window. There is not one aircraft out there that is approved for flight into known thunderstorms. Icing is another killer and sometimes it can overwhelm the de icing systems. Surface winds at the airport can be a factor, crosswind components may be exceeded. There are times you just can't go and will have to wait it out. This Ad sounds like the Corvalis makes pilots immortal and there is no such thing as a no go decision. An old saying in aviation: If your in a hurry to get there, just drive.

 

OK. I understand. It's not the Corvalis you think is dangerous, it's their advertising? I agree. I wasn't following earlier. Damn forums.

 

Piston singles are not a safe way to travel at night and in bad weather. The accident record clearly backs this up. Particularly in icing.

 

What's safer?

What accident record are you referring too?

 

Safer? Multiengine and turbine aircraft.

Take a look at AOPA's Nall Report for 2010:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/10nall.pdf

Specifically, pages 19-20, where you can see that multiengine aircraft accounted for only 5% of the GA weather related accidents. Admittedly, 2010 was a low year for multiengine weather related accidents, but they always account for fewer than 20% of GA weather related accidents. I didn't see if they broke it down by hours flown, although that would be a useful statistic.

 

That report doesn't take into account hours flow, type of twin, and number of twins flying versus the millions of Cessnas flying. Those statistics are bunk.

Theres no difference between the performance of a single vs. a twin in weather unless the or an engine quits. You're no safer in a twin in foul weather and you're twice as likely to lose 1 in a twin. If we're talking any airplane with a propeller be it piston or turbine, I'll take the single. Less to go wrong.