Another Cirrus Parachute "Save" 12/29

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Yes, this is a new thread.

For the second time in as many weeks, a Cirrus lost power in the dark. The pilot, realizing he couldn't make the nearest runway and couldn't see the ground, deployed the parachute.

Result: Pilot and canine uninjured...walked away...and were both invited into a local resident's house.

Night...engine problems...can't see terrain or pick the spot. Well done, pilot! Well done Cirrus! Well done BRS!

Here's the link:
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Coal-County-plane-crash-363791171.html

(I feel it coming..."He should have tried to land anyway in farm country...real pilots don't need parachutes...Not a true 'save' because he might have survived anyway." I'll keep my Cirrus, thank you very much!)
 
Last edited:
Is there some common thread connecting all of these Cirrus engine failures? Being the newest planes in the GA fleet, I'm surprised at how often we are hearing the same story.
 
Engine problems = fuel problems?
 
Is it just me.... Or does it look like the ripper cords didn't go far enough forward to help drop the plane in a flatter attitude... Cutter faliure? The mud spatter pattern looks like the plane has a fair amount of forward momentum...:dunno::dunno:
 
Another save ,with no injuries. So the chute works,what's with the engines?
 
It turns out the incident was caused by the pilot ignoring an Operating Limitation - no more than a 10 gal imbalance between tanks - and then not following standard emergency procedures when he ran one tank dry while the other had 30+ gals remaining.

:mad2:

I just posted this to COPA:

I'm so glad pilot and canine passenger survived this one.

But I was dismayed when I read the alleged proximate cause of the incident.

There are already enough pilots on other forums deriding the Cirrus and Cirrus pilots for being poorly trained, unskilled pilots that end up using CAPS to get them out of situations caused by their own ineptitude. I routinely defend CAPS and Cirrus pilots in most cases. But in this case I can't help but think the "other side" was just handed fodder for their derision on a silver platter.

Sigh.

(note: if this sounds familiar, I egregiously posted it in the wrong thread. Confused by two CAPS pulls just two days apart. Sorry.)
 
I agree with Jay. It's great to see the BRS saving lives but it is interesting that so many Cirrus are going down. Maybe it's just that they're more talked about or reported on than other type crashed but it also leads one to question if some underlying problem with the engine or some other system is causing these accidents.

Anyway very good to see the pilot and his dog walked away.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the Cirrus Marcom team goes into full power mode whenever someone pulls.
 
I doubt it has anything to do with the engine... just the idiot behind the engine.
 
oregonboy109 said:
...so many Cirrus are going down. Maybe it's just that they're more talked about or reported on than other type crashed but it also leads one to question if some underlying problem with the engine or some other system is causing these accidents.

Anyway very good to see the pilot and his dog walked away.
Click to expand...

So many going down? Can you elaborate more? I don't recall that many "going down", unless I missed something. I do not believe the stats support more Ciri going down that any other model/manufacturer.

Curious to see your data.
 
GLMS_NC said:
So many going down? Can you elaborate more? I don't recall that many "going down", unless I missed something. I do not believe the stats support more Ciri going down that any other model/manufacturer.

Curious to see your data.
Click to expand...

I should have phrased that differently as I was just referring to two engine failures/chute pulls this week and whether there is some underlying issue with the engine as was discussed in the other thread or simply pilot error, which can and does happen in all types.
 
N801BH said:
Is it just me.... Or does it look like the ripper cords didn't go far enough forward to help drop the plane in a flatter attitude... Cutter faliure? The mud spatter pattern looks like the plane has a fair amount of forward momentum...:dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...

Maybe he was trying to swoop?
 
oregonboy109 said:
I should have phrased that differently as I was just referring to two engine failures/chute pulls this week and whether there is some underlying issue with the engine as was discussed in the other thread or simply pilot error, which can and does happen in all types.
Click to expand...

One is clearly pilot error. And the other may be two, and I am leaning that way, but the facts need sorted out. No question the chute incidents gets attention. But it saves lives, and that is the most important.

As Ciri planes/motors are getting older it will be interesting to see going forward the number of pulls. I bet Ciri fatal crash numbers are lower that the rest of GA, and I bet it stays that way thanks to the chute. I am sure there are numbers for this now.
 
James331 said:
Maybe he was trying to swoop?
Click to expand...

In rethinking the pics, I am now guessing it was a late pull and since the cutter lines have a 8 second delay, the plane never got to the "flat float down mode" before it hit the ground.....:dunno:
 
Glad to see the dog and his human survived. :)
 
GLMS_NC said:
So many going down? Can you elaborate more? I don't recall that many "going down", unless I missed something. I do not believe the stats support more Ciri going down that any other model/manufacturer.

Curious to see your data.
Click to expand...

Seriously... Anyone care to look up the Bonanza fatals vs. Cirrus fatals for 2015?
 
oregonboy109 said:
I agree with Jay. It's great to see the BRS saving lives but it is interesting that so many Cirrus are going down. Maybe it's just that they're more talked about or reported on than other type crashed but it also leads one to question if some underlying problem with the engine or some other system is causing these accidents.

Anyway very good to see the pilot and his dog walked away.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the stats to back up this statement, but even if it is true I bet I know the answer. The Cirrus is a fairly new plane, and it's selling very well, about 10:1 compared to other comparable new planes. As such I would expect them to be flying a lot. I can't see too many people stepping up to buy a new plane to let it sit on the ramp.

So now you have the best selling new plane out there, with lots of flights. Stands to reason that the number of accidents might seem high simply because the number of flights is high in comparison to some other types.

*note this is just a theory, and not presented as truth, but rather as food for thought.
 
RudyP said:
Seriously... Anyone care to look up the Bonanza fatals vs. Cirrus fatals for 2015?
Click to expand...

I think the better comparison would be accidents/incidents. Obviously CAPS gives the Cirrus an edge on survivabilty, but a crash is a crash if we're trying to say which plane is going down more often.
 
I didn't download the data, just did some quick queries, so someone might want to double-check me on this. Tough to actually compare without knowing the flight hours I guess, and the flight regimes of these two are probably different, so maybe I should compare some other model to the Cirrus.

Cirrus incidents in 2015: 18 (5 fatal/27%)
172 incidents in 2015: 90 (14 fatal/15%)
 
Slight thread drift...I was listening to an 'Airplane Geeks' podcast recently and their guest was Boris Popov, the founder of BRS.

If anyone is interested, pretty educational:
http://www.airplanegeeks.com/
Scroll down a bit...
 
FastEddieB said:
It turns out the incident was caused by the pilot ignoring an Operating Limitation - no more than a 10 gal imbalance between tanks - and then not following standard emergency procedures when he ran one tank dry while the other had 30+ gals remaining

There is something to be said here FastEddie. Folks not taking the responsibility of piloting an aircraft safely. No excuse for running out of fuel. If the engine dies know what to do and follow the procedures.

I've been playing with my fuel system lately. One tank dry and the other full. On the ground I start and warm engine, select the dry tank and wait for it to die. I can switch to the full tank and keep the engine running before the prop stops. Of course I am anticipating this and know it must switch tanks quickly to keep it running.

There should be no hesitation when preforming emergency procedures.
Click to expand...
 
How do you even forget the switch tanks in a Cirrus? Even their oldest planes' avionics constantly reminds you to do so. Real lack of attention by this pilot, though everyone makes mistakes and I'm glad he's safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't know if there are a "lot" of cirrus going down. It seems that Mooneyspace mentions a mooney going down with nearly the same frequency. IMO the cirrus is more scrutinized.
 
GLMS_NC said:
One is clearly pilot error. And the other may be two, and I am leaning that way, but the facts need sorted out. No question the chute incidents gets attention. But it saves lives, and that is the most important.

As Ciri planes/motors are getting older it will be interesting to see going forward the number of pulls. I bet Ciri fatal crash numbers are lower that the rest of GA, and I bet it stays that way thanks to the chute. I am sure there are numbers for this now.
Click to expand...
True. Cirrus fatality rate is very low, at the bottom of the GA fleet.
 
StinkBug said:
I think the better comparison would be accidents/incidents. Obviously CAPS gives the Cirrus an edge on survivabilty, but a crash is a crash if we're trying to say which plane is going down more often.
Click to expand...

If I was an airplane, I'd care more about the accident rate, but since I'm a human being, I care a lot more about my survival than my plane's.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
True. Cirrus fatality rate is very low, at the bottom of the GA fleet.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how one could conclude that in the absence of quality, reliable, consistent data regarding hours flown by type and for the fleet in total.
 
Stats from 2015
Beech A36: 17 Incidents, 7 Fatal (41%)
Mooney M20 Series: 19 Incidents, 4 Fatal (21%)
Cirrus SR20/22: 19 Incidents, 6 Fatal (31%)
 
If you want to be statistically safe while flying go commercial?
 
I wish Cirrus made a 6 seater with 1400 useful load. I would buy that.
 
Last edited:
Is ADS-B going to provide us with much better "hours flown" stats?
 
Challenged said:
Stats from 2015
Beech A36: 17 Incidents, 7 Fatal (41%)
Mooney M20 Series: 19 Incidents, 4 Fatal (21%)
Cirrus SR20/22: 19 Incidents, 6 Fatal (31%)
Click to expand...

If you add in the other types of Bonanzas the numbers look different (fatal only):
Year Bonanza Cirrus

2015 20 6

2014 7 3

2013 11 8

2012 13 10

2011 11 16
 
Challenged said:
Is ADS-B going to provide us with much better "hours flown" stats?
Click to expand...


Good point.

FlightAware could probably assimilate the data because they have their own network of ads-b receivers and they know the registration info for each aircraft.

Of course some aircraft will fly exclusively in airspace that is exempt from ads-b requirements, so ads-b data will still be an incomplete measure of fleet activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top