Another Cirrus red handle landing

RudyP said:
I think he misread your post and you guys are in fact on the same side of the argument. FWIW, so am I. The parachute is a great option to have when the SHTF. I like to think that I'm a decent pilot but I'm a terrible gambler. I'll take 99.x% odds of being alive (parachute) over 90% (glide to off field landing) any day in a dodgy situation. Screw the macho armchair pilots who would have glided it in and rescued a busload of orphans from a burning crash on the way home.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but do you have more photos of your Cirrus somewhere (I just see the photo in your avatar)? I LOVE that red, it is my favorite color and I don't think I have ever seen that color of red on a Cirrus yet. I really wanted that cherry red color on my F-150, but had to settle for blue jean blue.
 
CC268 said:
Off topic, but do you have more photos of your Cirrus somewhere (I just see the photo in your avatar)? I LOVE that red, it is my favorite color and I don't think I have ever seen that color of red on a Cirrus yet. I really wanted that cherry red color on my F-150, but had to settle for blue jean blue.
Click to expand...

I sure do... Designed the paint scheme myself.
full.jpg
IMG_2871.jpg
 
Very interesting thread. So people are criticizing the pilot for using the safety feature that saved his life instead of trying to prove he was an awesome pilot and landing somewhere.

Never seen this debate on POA before. Fascinating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
haskell99 said:
Very interesting thread. So people are criticizing the pilot for using the safety feature that saved his life instead of trying to prove he was an awesome pilot and landing somewhere.

Never seen this debate on POA before. Fascinating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm not looking back at the comments to count but it was only like four people saying they are better than the red handle. And it's the internet so..... fewer people would hold to that in real life I would think.
 
The attitude has definitely shifted (for the better) a lot over the last 5 years. It used to be that in a thread like this, 75-90% would bash the chute and claim that "real pilots don't need the chute" while a minority defended it. Now it seems that the vast majority, even those who have never flown a CAPS-equipped plane get it. I'm quite encouraged. The chute isnt perfect by any means but it has definitely saved peoples' lives.
 
Most Cirrus criticism are from pilots who have never flown it. I only have around 700 hours between 20/22/T and they are amazing machines.
 
Or can't afford them...I certainly fit that category lol. BEAUTIFUL airplanes. I think Cirrus is great for the GA market. I think they are really putting the pressure on Cessna, Piper, etc...but what do I know.
 
I love Cirrus planes. Great looking, great flying, and amazing safety features. Anytime I see a thread about a chute pull I smile because someone lived through a potentially fatal scenario. It's a tool in the bag. Use it when needed. I know I will if I have to
 
The only thing that I wonder about is what is causing these problems? I guess because of the chute the plane gets a lot of press so we hear about these crashes more than say a C 172 or something else. Just seems to be a lot of them experiencing engine problems and crashing, but again, it makes the news. I dunno.
 
CC268 said:
Off topic, but do you have more photos of your Cirrus somewhere (I just see the photo in your avatar)? I LOVE that red, it is my favorite color and I don't think I have ever seen that color of red on a Cirrus yet. I really wanted that cherry red color on my F-150, but had to settle for blue jean blue.
Click to expand...
Toyota Barcelona Red is very similar
 
Cessna offered a BRS option on the 162, I actually saw an equipped one at Oshkosh this year.
I've seen several Tecnams with them, as well.
 
I think you can get them added to most 182s and 172s post 1974.
 
Yes, 182 and 172. I'd be buying a plane very shortly if they had them for the pa-32. Cirrus is nice, but not enough useful load


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
There are times when the chute is best choice and times when it's not in my opinion. It's a tool. Like any tool it has it's application. Without proper training I think having a red handle can negatively affect overall safety.
 
I've seen systems for Experimentals...I think BRS offers one. Price tag was around $7K, IIRC.
 
MIFlyer said:
Yes, 182 and 172. I'd be buying a plane very shortly if they had them for the pa-32. Cirrus is nice, but not enough useful load


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Which ones are you looking at? All depends on how much crap you have on them. Some have 1100-1200 useful loads which is plenty for four reasonably sized adults plus bags and fuel
 
Flight Design CT's have chutes.

I would put one on my Sky Arrow if I could get a weight exemption and they could figure out a good place to install it.

There's a lot of forested wilderness around my home base and poor to zero landing sites available were my engine to fail. Having a red handle option again would be nice.
 
mscard88 said:
The only thing that I wonder about is what is causing these problems? I guess because of the chute the plane gets a lot of press so we hear about these crashes more than say a C 172 or something else. Just seems to be a lot of them experiencing engine problems and crashing, but again, it makes the news. I dunno.
Click to expand...

I could see myself flying a Cirrus one day and yes, I also think that a chute would be a 'nice to have'.

However, they awfully often seem to have engine failures. Is this really just an impression created by the media? Do they have technical issues? Or is it rather the pilot's fault, who simply run out of fuel?
 
Paging @wanttaja
I think he has covered this topic pretty well.
I believe the stats point to it not being as prolific as it seems relative to other models.
 
German guy said:
I could see myself flying a Cirrus one day and yes, I also think that a chute would be a 'nice to have'.

However, they awfully often seem to have engine failures. Is this really just an impression created by the media? Do they have technical issues? Or is it rather the pilot's fault, who simply run out of fuel?
Click to expand...

Highly doubt there is anything wrong with the plane.

Pilots might tend to run out of fuel more often. And Cirrus are flying so much more hours than any other type. I can't remember exactly but it would not surprise me to learn that Cirrus are flying about as much hours per year as all of the other light GA singles combined.
 
dell30rb said:
...And Cirrus are flying so much more hours than any other type. I can't remember exactly but it would not surprise me to learn that Cirrus are flying about as much hours per year as all of the other light GA singles combined.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, and a reasonable explanation for the frequency of engine-out anecdotes. Do you have a link to some supporting facts for this?
 
George Mohr said:
That's interesting, and a reasonable explanation for the frequency of engine-out anecdotes. Do you have a link to some supporting facts for this?
Click to expand...

I think what I remember seeing is there are more SR22's in the IFR system daily any other GA type. No stats on hand. I might spend a minute looking for it.

The fatal and non-fatal accident rates by type are published per 100,000 flight hours by AOPA and other organizations. I think Cirrus is around 1.2 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, which is on par with the rest of the piston singles. It used to be much higher, but better training has fixed it.
 
Bingo. From Richard Collins's Air Facts website

"You can look at Flight Aware’s listing by type of airplanes in the IFR system at any given moment and there will be a lot of SR-22s in there. In fact there are usually more than any other GA type that is used for transportation."

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/


Also worth a read.. an updated article from the same author. The fatal accident rate for Cirrus has gone down significantly in recent years.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2016/08/whats-right-cirrus-pilots/
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Paging @wanttaja
I think he has covered this topic pretty well.
Click to expand...

Oooo, it's the bat signal!

Well, I guess it's just a splotch of pizza sauce on a shirt-front, but it'll do.

I ran an analysis earlier this year, comparing the Cirrus with the Cessna 210 and a combination of Glasairs and Lancairs. This gave three groups with the same number of accidents over a ~15-year period.

The Cirrus had the highest rate of what I call "Pilot Miscontrol" accidents...related to basic pilot skills vs. judgement. 51% of 231 Cirrus accidents were due to Pilot Miscontrol, vs. 35% of the Cessna 210s and 40% for the homebuilts. This can be mostly laid to pilot inexperience. The median total time for pilots involved in Cirrus accidents was 727 hours. HALF that of the Cessna 210 group (1468) and way under the Glasair/Lancair set (1700 hours).

As a comparison the Cessna 172 had a Pilot Miscontrol rate of over 60% and the median flight hours was less than a third of the Cirrus (215 hours). Mind you, the 172 is often used as a trainer.

The relative occurrence of other accident causes can be viewed here:
cirrus.jpg

The Cirrus does not have an unusual rate of engine failures or fuel exhaustion. Thirteen percent of all Cirrus accidents begin with a loss of engine power (for any cause, mechanical or pilot). In the case of both the Cessna 210s and the Glasair/Lancair set, the rate is double...over 30%, in both cases. It's higher for even the Cessna 172 (15%).

One of the most arresting results was the percentage of accidents that resulted in serious injuries or fatalities after an engine failure for any reason (mechanical or pilot issues). In those cases where a reportable accident occurred (e.g., the NTSB doesn't track no-damage forced landings) 16.7% of Cirrus engine failures lead to at least one fatality or serious injury, vs. 39.3% for the Cessna 210 and 41.3% for the High Performance Homebuilts. Having the CAPS is probably a big factor, here, and no doubt improved crashworthiness of the more-modern design is a contributor as well.

As a final factor, consider: The rate of serious injuries after CAPS deployments *within the CAPS envelope* is extremely low. Imagine you're flying with your family and an emergency develops within the envelope and with enough decision time available. You can pull the CAPS...and everyone will survive. Or you can try to perform a forced landing, with the knowledge that if you aren't 100% perfect, there's a 40% chance someone you love will die.

Me, I fly a single-seat airplane with no BRS and no personal chute. Whatever happens, I'll ride it in. But no one else's lives are riding on my skills, luck, or decision-making capabilities.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top