Cirrus Bahamas CAP landing Oil Pressure?

marcoseddi

marcoseddi

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
1,376
Location
Long Branch NJ
Display Name
Display name:
marc
I'm sure a lot of you heard about the Cirrus that parachuted down in the Bahamas, a doctor headed for Haiti. Glad everything ended up okay with them and its great they had such equipment but why in a nearly brand new state of the art plane did that happen?
 
marcoseddi said:
I'm sure a lot of you heard about the Cirrus that parachuted down in the Bahamas, a doctor headed for Haiti. Glad everything ended up okay with them and its great they had such equipment but why in a nearly brand new state of the art plane did that happen?
Click to expand...

If you ever owned a new Cirrus you would understand.
 
marcoseddi said:
I didn't soooo id like to know why?
Click to expand...
Loss of oil pressure? Nearly new, may be "teething problems". Or may be a pilot who didn't attach the oil cap solidly, or an A&P who didn't safety wire the drain plug, or....

Using the CAPS? IIRC, that's what the Cirrus manual calls out in the case of an engine failure. There has been a lot of discussion about this policy, but it basically boils down to the insurance companies preferring to pay six figures for a new airplane vs. seven or eight in a wrongful death lawsuit.

A lot of folks "survive" engine failures but are killed in the subsequent emergency landing. The CAPS is intended to improve the odds.

Oh, and the Cirrus is a "state of the art airplane" mostly from the point of view of the electronics. The basic engine design is probably 40+ years old.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I guess I don't understand your question. He was dead stick and glided it down from 9,500 to 2,300 ft and when it was absolutely clear he wasn't making land he pulled the chute. In that case I'd much much much rather go in the water under the chute than risk a tumble through the water.

If you question was why was he dead stick? I wouldn't have any idea about that. Looks like he had an oil leak.
 
James_Dean said:
In that case I'd much much much rather go in the water under the chute than risk a tumble through the water.
Click to expand...

Only issue is that the CAP was not designed for a water landing. The Cirrus was designed to utilize BOTH the CAP and the absorbed energy from the collapsing gear to minimize the impact forces on the occupants. Much debate out there as to whether or not it is better to ditch (which even in fixed gear airplanes has a fairly high success rate) or go down under the canopy and take your chances with back/spinal injuries.

Personally, unless it was really rough sea state, I'd rather strap myself in as tight as possible and wait for the motion to stop then chance the back injury.....but then I've had emergency egress training.
 
marcoseddi said:
I didn't soooo id like to know why?
Click to expand...

On mine during the first 2 years I went through 7 autopilots, 2 alternators, 3 CAPS recalls, flap servo failure, aileron servo failure, vacume pump switch failure, starting problems, and various other problems. At the end of the 2 years the warranty ran out and I sold the plane. I put on most of my hours flying to the service center and back.
 
James_Dean said:
I guess I don't understand your question. He was dead stick and glided it down from 9,500 to 2,300 ft and when it was absolutely clear he wasn't making land he pulled the chute. In that case I'd much much much rather go in the water under the chute than risk a tumble through the water.

If you question was why was he dead stick? I wouldn't have any idea about that. Looks like he had an oil leak.
Click to expand...


Not me, planes don't "tumble through the water" when they ditch. The thing with the CAPS system is that the landing gear is part of it and buffers the Gs at the terminal end. In water that buffer is missing and the plane plops right on the full plate of the wings and fuselage. The guy that went into the Hudson under chute ended up with a broken back and some crushed vertebrae. If I'm going into the water, I'll fly it on.
 
DavidWhite said:
A Cirrus is just a pile of **** all around.

If you have no problem burning to death in a fairly grizzly manner should you ever have an accident, then it's the plane for you.
Click to expand...
I have flown the Cirrus a bit, not sure what you are referring to, but I'm sure that you could point me to some reference material so maybe I can make a better informed decision?:dunno:
 
DavidWhite said:
A Cirrus is just a pile of **** all around.

If you have no problem burning to death in a fairly grizzly manner should you ever have an accident, then it's the plane for you.
Click to expand...


A Cirrus has one real fault that $1500 worth of bladders would cure, the other fault is that the gear is locked down. Outside of that a Cirrus is a just fine aircraft.
 
Henning said:
Not me, planes don't "tumble through the water" when they ditch.
Click to expand...
Depends on design. Some, like the Airbus Sully was flying, can be landed smoothly, although in that jet, if you're off on touchdown attitude, bad things can happen. Some fixed gear planes tend to flip over the nose onto their backs. I fully understand why Cirrus does not recommend the CAPS for water landings due to the impact absorbtion issues discussed above, but I will not criticize the pilot of a fixed gear airplane facing a water landing for pulling the chute and risking spinal compression rather than making a "normal" ditching which might end inverted.
 
Henning said:
A Cirrus has one real fault that $1500 worth of bladders would cure, the other fault is that the gear is locked down. Outside of that a Cirrus is a just fine aircraft.
Click to expand...
If the gear wasn't fixed, it would defeat a lot of the purposes for which the Cirrus was intended, including avoiding gear-up landings, reducing acquisition and operating costs, and reducing pilot requirements.
 
Henning said:
Not me, planes don't "tumble through the water" when they ditch. The thing with the CAPS system is that the landing gear is part of it and buffers the Gs at the terminal end. In water that buffer is missing and the plane plops right on the full plate of the wings and fuselage. The guy that went into the Hudson under chute ended up with a broken back and some crushed vertebrae. If I'm going into the water, I'll fly it on.
Click to expand...

Retract the gear and I might agree with you. I'd copy this guy's performance any day.
 
Back injusry sounds a little scary to me and ive seen people with a lot less impact and alot worse issues so doesnt like this guy had too bad of a drop or pound into the water as both walked away with no injury and ready to go to Haiti..
 
Maybe he just decided that he didn't like the airplane and could not sell it for what he paid for it and its just easier to sell it to the insurance company . . .
 
Fearless Tower said:
Such as? Isn't that a potential problem for any airplane?
Click to expand...
Kind of the inverse -- in the Airbus (and some other clean-belly types), if you're on attitude, it can have a great outcome, but in some planes, you've got trouble no matter what the attitude, and fixed gear planes generally fall in that latter group. But with the Airbus (and any other jet with pylon-slung engines), pitch attitude on touchdown is a bit more critical than jets with tail-mounted engines. This was covered in some detail in one of those History/Discovery channel shows on Sully's water landing.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the gear wasn't fixed, it would defeat a lot of the purposes for which the Cirrus was intended, including avoiding gear-up landings, reducing acquisition and operating costs, and reducing pilot requirements.
Click to expand...


So, trade effort for efficiency, lowest common denominator. If you believe them deficient in these regards, how do you justify saying they can handle the rest of the package of a Technically Advanced Aircraft? As the owner of a TAA I can attest that the avionics package was the single most difficult time intensive thing to learn outside of weather. I started handling gear while a Student Pilot and had all three endorsements as part of my PP training. In over 1400 hrs of complex time I haven't missed hitting the switch and checking the gear three time on every landing, it's called discipline. That's pessimism is what you're talking. Do you think that little of the pilots you know and train? :confused:
 
DavidWhite said:
A Cirrus is just a pile of **** all around.

If you have no problem burning to death in a fairly grizzly manner should you ever have an accident, then it's the plane for you.
Click to expand...

-sigh- Here we go again with the uninformed and biased commentary. I'm not going to even bother this time to provide numbers, as they'd probably be ignored by those who love to hate.
 
The one injury landing in water was a cracked vertebrae. BRS suspects the descent may have been faster than normal since the engine was left runnign and the pilot was trying to steer with engine power. BRS suspects that may have partially spilled the chute. Still, the pilot was walking a few days later and skiing the next year.

On water the displacement on impact replaces the shock absorption of the landing gear. Just look at the real world data including the ditching in the Bahamas. The record is excellent.



Fearless Tower said:
Only issue is that the CAP was not designed for a water landing. The Cirrus was designed to utilize BOTH the CAP and the absorbed energy from the collapsing gear to minimize the impact forces on the occupants. Much debate out there as to whether or not it is better to ditch (which even in fixed gear airplanes has a fairly high success rate) or go down under the canopy and take your chances with back/spinal injuries.

Personally, unless it was really rough sea state, I'd rather strap myself in as tight as possible and wait for the motion to stop then chance the back injury.....but then I've had emergency egress training.
Click to expand...
 
The plane wasn't nearly new. It was just out of annual. It had had an acceptance flight after annual but I think that was it. In fact it was old enough to originally have had the Avidyne rather than Perspective avionics but had been upgraded to Avidyne R9.


wanttaja said:
Loss of oil pressure? Nearly new, may be "teething problems". Or may be a pilot who didn't attach the oil cap solidly, or an A&P who didn't safety wire the drain plug, or....

Using the CAPS? IIRC, that's what the Cirrus manual calls out in the case of an engine failure. There has been a lot of discussion about this policy, but it basically boils down to the insurance companies preferring to pay six figures for a new airplane vs. seven or eight in a wrongful death lawsuit.

A lot of folks "survive" engine failures but are killed in the subsequent emergency landing. The CAPS is intended to improve the odds.

Oh, and the Cirrus is a "state of the art airplane" mostly from the point of view of the electronics. The basic engine design is probably 40+ years old.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
DavidWhite said:
A Cirrus is just a pile of **** all around.

If you have no problem burning to death in a fairly grizzly manner should you ever have an accident, then it's the plane for you.
Click to expand...

Based on what data? Your likelihood of burning to death in a Cirrus is no higher than a Cessna 206 for instance based on my review of NTSB data.
 
ArtPileggi said:
On mine during the first 2 years I went through 7 autopilots, 2 alternators, 3 CAPS recalls, flap servo failure, aileron servo failure, vacume pump switch failure, starting problems, and various other problems. At the end of the 2 years the warranty ran out and I sold the plane. I put on most of my hours flying to the service center and back.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's really bad. I've been pretty fortunate I guess. My maintenance pretty much matches my friend's Bonanza which he says is better than his 182 was.
 
Henning said:
The guy that went into the Hudson under chute ended up with a broken back and some crushed vertebrae. If I'm going into the water, I'll fly it on.
Click to expand...

Dang Hennig you know better than this. Ilan had a single cracked vertebrae. He was still able to swim from the plane. The brain tumor that had caused him to black out was the serious issue.
 
Henning said:
It is a sought after plane, the 22 more so than the 20 for the speed.

For the 22 owners, what is your fuel burn at 180 kts?
Click to expand...

16-17 gals at 10,000ft. take it to 20,000 and you get 210kts at 17 gals.

its a fine piece of equip. 200 lbs more of payload and it would perfect.
 
Ron Levy said:
I fully understand why Cirrus does not recommend the CAPS for water landings
Click to expand...

Dang, doesn't anyone check the facts. Here is ditching section of the SR22 POH

Ditching
1. Radio ............................................ Transmit (121.5 MHz) MAYDAY
giving location and intentions
2. Transponder ........................................................... SQUAWK 7700
3. CAPS............................................................................. ACTIVATE
If available, life preservers should be donned and life raft should
be prepared for immediate evacuation upon touchdown.
Consider unlatching a door prior to assuming the emergency
landing body position in order to provide a ready escape path.
4. Airplane.........................................................................EVACUATE
It may be necessary to allow some cabin flooding to equalize
pressure on the doors. If the doors cannot be opened, break out
the windows with the egress hammer and crawl through the
opening.
5. Flotation Devices ............ INFLATE WHEN CLEAR OF AIRPLANE
 
Henning said:
It is a sought after plane, the 22 more so than the 20 for the speed.

For the 22 owners, what is your fuel burn at 180 kts?
Click to expand...

I have one of the slowest SR22's out there. I run LOP and usually cruise about 167. Fuel burn depends on altitude. I would say 167 @ 14 gph at 8K'. At 17K' it is more like 10.5 gph and a lower cruise around 162 TAS.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
If there would have been any significant wind I could see being trapped in a sinking kite fighting the water flow trying to get out. Not my idea of a good time. :nono:
Click to expand...

Considering you have time to get ready prior to hitting the water I don't see the issue. Unlike a standard ditching in a fixed gear plane you are pretty assured to land with the gear pointing down. There is an inrush of water on impact due to water being forced into the ventilation system but it hardly floods the cockpit. Based on listening to Ilan who had the cracked vertebra and Dick Mclaughlin and his daughter (Bahamas) I see no disadvantage compared to standard ditching. Elaine Mclaughlin did say the initial deceleration upon pulling the handle was the biggest shock.
 
peppy said:
Considering you have time to get ready prior to hitting the water I don't see the issue. Unlike a standard ditching in a fixed gear plane you are pretty assured to land with the gear pointing down. There is an inrush of water on impact due to water being forced into the ventilation system but it hardly floods the cockpit. Based on listening to Ilan who had the cracked vertebra and Dick Mclaughlin and his daughter (Bahamas) I see no disadvantage compared to standard ditching. Elaine Mclaughlin did say the initial deceleration upon pulling the handle was the biggest shock.
Click to expand...

These posts just show how it is far easier to be lazy and go on your impressions rather than facts and data. Not a good attitude for pilots.
 
Leaving the cap off an IO-550 is not going to result in a significant loss of oil I suspect. I left my dipstick sitting on the baffling once and I don't think I lost a quart. However, a quart of oil makes an ungodly mess when smeared all over the plane by the slip stream.
My instructor used to say "oil is like blood" a little looks like a whole lot more than it is.
 
peppy said:
The one injury landing in water was a cracked vertebrae. BRS suspects the descent may have been faster than normal since the engine was left runnign and the pilot was trying to steer with engine power. BRS suspects that may have partially spilled the chute. Still, the pilot was walking a few days later and skiing the next year.

On water the displacement on impact replaces the shock absorption of the landing gear. Just look at the real world data including the ditching in the Bahamas. The record is excellent.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I will say this - my comments regarding BRS use over water vs over land come from other Cirrus Pilots I have talked to....not necessarily Cirrus haters. So, if what you say is true....sounds like Cirrus has some work to do in the information dissemination realm.

Also, for the record, I am not a Cirrus hater. I have just never had a mission that warranted spending the money to get checked out in one. I think the problem with the airplane is that it needs to be flown with more training and respect than the average 172/182.
 
I believe the Cirrus is a great aircraft. I wish the control feel was better, but that's about my only criticism. Best wing for safety (stall behavior) on any small GA bird IMO. Plenty of innovations and advances are 100% due to Cirrus. Glass cockpits for example are becoming common on all ages of aircraft, Cirrus caused the change.

There are definitely scenarios where having a chute would be a huge advantage. I wish they were available and affordable for more types.

I wonder how many critics have actually flown something like a G3 SR22 and would still say it is a POS?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I believe the Cirrus is a great aircraft. I wish the control feel was better, but that's about my only criticism. Best wing for safety (stall behavior) on any small GA bird IMO. Plenty of innovations and advances are 100% due to Cirrus. Glass cockpits for example are becoming common on all ages of aircraft, Cirrus caused the change.

There are definitely scenarios where having a chute would be a huge advantage. I wish they were available and affordable for more types.

I wonder how many critics have actually flown something like a G3 SR22 and would still say it is a POS?
Click to expand...

Very few. Very, very few.
 
peppy said:
Dang Hennig you know better than this. Ilan had a single cracked vertebrae. He was still able to swim from the plane. The brain tumor that had caused him to black out was the serious issue.
Click to expand...

Fine, I already have back surgeries in my history. Unless we're talking big waves, I'll fly it onto the water, that fixed gear planes always flip is a myth. Plus I've been through the heli dunker in water survival, it doesn't particularly frighten me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top