Cirrus down under chute in NC, right next to house. No injuries.

Kritchlow said:
That's where we part opinions... I think the same thing would have happened if they were in a Cessna. The only difference is they would have been pulled out of a wrecked airplane and loaded into a hearse.
Click to expand...

You see, for every Cirrus "hater" there is a Cirrus "lover" who believes that without a chute you're just plain-ass gonna die. :rolleyes:
 
Silvaire said:
You see, for every Cirrus "hater" there is a Cirrus "lover" who believes that without a chute you're just plain-ass gonna die. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am neither a Cirrus lover or a Cirrus hater. In fact the closest I've been to flying a Cirrus is standing on a wing looking into the cockpit. But I don't think this guy ran low on fuel, then was unable to set up and fly several approaches, because he had the confidence of having that chute as a backup. Plenty of people do the same in airplanes without chutes. The chute is not a sure thing. You have some chance of injury, you substantially damage the airplane, and your actions get scrutinized in much detail on the internet...
 
Silvaire said:
You see, for every Cirrus "hater" there is a Cirrus "lover" who believes that without a chute you're just plain-ass gonna die. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I never said that. I'm just playing the odds. If you ran out of fuel in low IFR, the odds are not good. At best there is very little you can do, no matter how good of a pilot you are.

It should be noted that when I wrote what you quoted, my belief was that he did run out of fuel and the weather was much lower.
 
I am a boring old VFR only SEL tailwheel and glider pilot, so I do a lot of stick and rudder flying.

On the atlantic article website, listening to the exchange between the controller and the pilot, my only comment is: Why didnt he declare an emergency?!?

At 17:36, with KNOWN less-than-17 minutes left of fuel, the pilot deliberately and distinctly says that he doesnt want to declare an emergency. All the runways would have been cleared and he could have landed on whatever he saw fit.....good reminder to me that paperwork and an FAA investigation is WAY less hassle than being macho/stubborn and pulling a chute when it becomes a REAL emergency. I suspect that repacking that chute is going to be a LOT of paperwork and more expensive than any paperwork that would have occurred following a declaration of an emergency.
 
There is very often no paperwork after declaring an emergency, unless it becomes an incident or accident.

This undeclared emergency became an accident, which will require reams of paperwork for the FAA and his insurance company.
 
Ozone said:
I am a boring old VFR only SEL tailwheel and glider pilot, so I do a lot of stick and rudder flying.

On the atlantic article website, listening to the exchange between the controller and the pilot, my only comment is: Why didnt he declare an emergency?!?

At 17:36, with KNOWN less-than-17 minutes left of fuel, the pilot deliberately and distinctly says that he doesnt want to declare an emergency. All the runways would have been cleared and he could have landed on whatever he saw fit.....good reminder to me that paperwork and an FAA investigation is WAY less hassle than being macho/stubborn and pulling a chute when it becomes a REAL emergency. I suspect that repacking that chute is going to be a LOT of paperwork and more expensive than any paperwork that would have occurred following a declaration of an emergency.
Click to expand...

He very easily could have navigated / got vectored back directly above the airport and then pulled the chute ....:rolleyes:
 
Silvaire said:
You see, for every Cirrus "hater" there is a Cirrus "lover" who believes that without a chute you're just plain-ass gonna die. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is true. And the reality is that while this accident is a win for BRS and a win for Cirrus, it is NOT a success story for the pilot community.
 
tuwood said:
In the event of an emergency (as in running low on fuel) won't the G1000 drop you right on the runway with an instrument approach?
I know you have to hand fly the landing but visibility would have to be REALLY bad for that to not to be a primary option I would think (instrument rating or not).
Click to expand...
I think it still takes some training and practice to get the G1000 to fly an appoach to decision height. Most of the challenge involving getting the aircraft in position to initiate an approach and just plain button pushing. However, with some training, your avionics can be used to pull you out of some holes - short of running out of fuel. (I have no G1000 experience)
tuwood said:
Is the phenomenon of getting in over your head more prevalent in cirrus pilots? I have seen numerous pilot deaths the past several weeks in non cirrus aircraft where the pilots died and most appear to be pilots getting in over their heads.
Click to expand...
This goes back to the old Bonanza 'doctor killer' thing. Generally referring to people with the funds to buy the best but lacking the time (and in some cases the inclination) to get or remain proficient. Many of today's 'doctors' would buy a Cirrus, in part for the chute, and then proceed to get in over their heads. Of course, none of those people are here on POA.
tuwood said:
I do see where a Cirrus with a glass panel, FIKI, and a chute could make low hour pilots feel more inclined to go when conditions are on the border where a pilot in a plane without those features would more likely stay on the ground. Perhaps that's where the argument holds some water, but I bet a low hour pilot who burned $850k on a similar equipped (non chute plane) would feel every bit as confident in the same conditions.

I do follow these discussions with a ton of interest because I am doing my training in a Cirrus and plan to ultimately purchase one of them. I am a huge fan of CAPS and it's the reason I want one.
Click to expand...
I don't think the chute has much to do with go, no-go decisions of any pilots.

If things were lined up in certain ways for me, I would probably be a Cirrus owner at this point. I think it is the best certified piston SEL available but fortunately I was able to do better and build my own RV10.
 
Bill Watson said:
I don't think the chute has much to do with go, no-go decisions of any pilots.
Click to expand...

It does, at least in some cases.

There are more than a few pilots on COPA who will tell you that there are flights they will make in a Cirrus that they would not make without the CAPS - at night, over mountainous terrain, that sort of thing.

"Risk Homeostasis" is real.
 
FastEddieB said:
It does, at least in some cases.

There are more than a few pilots on COPA who will tell you that there are flights they will make in a Cirrus that they would not make without the CAPS - at night, over mountainous terrain, that sort of thing.

"Risk Homeostasis" is real.
Click to expand...

My luck, I'd land right on the peak and freeze to death. :hairraise:
 
FastEddieB said:
It does, at least in some cases.

There are more than a few pilots on COPA who will tell you that there are flights they will make in a Cirrus that they would not make without the CAPS - at night, over mountainous terrain, that sort of thing.

"Risk Homeostasis" is real.
Click to expand...

I will admit. I fly in conditions with the Cirrus I would not fly in a Cessna. I would assume the same logic is made by people between a single engine and a twin. IE, I would fly night IFR in the Cirrus where I would not feel comfortable doing so in a Cessna. I don't see any problem with that.
 
JasonM said:
I will admit. I fly in conditions with the Cirrus I would not fly in a Cessna. I would assume the same logic is made by people between a single engine and a twin. IE, I would fly night IFR in the Cirrus where I would not feel comfortable doing so in a Cessna. I don't see any problem with that.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with that. But the point that is being made is that by having safer equipment, you feel safer, so you engage in more risky behavior. Since the overall risk that you will tolerate doesn't change, you're not any safer in the Cirrus than in a Cessna.
 
FastEddieB said:
...There are more than a few pilots on COPA who will tell you that there are flights they will make in a Cirrus that they would not make without the CAPS - at night, over mountainous terrain, that sort of thing...
Click to expand...

Of course, in the case of chute deployment, night has no bearing since once deployed you have no control over where you're going to set down anyway but the idea that you're going to be okay in the mountains baffles me. At least the mountains I'm used to that have incredibly steep rocky slopes, cliffs, canyons and gorges. You'd likely be better off if you could manage a controlled crash on a ridge top or river bed, maybe even a road.
 
Silvaire said:
At least the mountains I'm used to that have incredibly steep rocky slopes, cliffs, canyons and gorges. You'd likely be better off if you could manage a controlled crash on a ridge top or river bed, maybe even a road.
Click to expand...

Have to strongly disagree here.

Several CAPS pulls have been in mountainous terrain and all pulled within limits have been survivable. Clearly not all will be, but hard to imagine many cases where a 60k to 70k "controlled crash" into mountainous terrain would be less dangerous than a slower vertical descent into same.
 
FastEddieB said:
Have to strongly disagree here.

Several CAPS pulls have been in mountainous terrain and all pulled within limits have been survivable. Clearly not all will be, but hard to imagine many cases where a 60k to 70k "controlled crash" into mountainous terrain would be less dangerous than a slower vertical descent into same.
Click to expand...
Independent of the data, that's what I'd think as well.
 
Have not seen the ones in mountains but if you hit a slope or canyon edge the chute is done and you're going to cartwheel down the hill or over the cliff just like any other untethered object and you're not going to have any means of controlling it.
 
FastEddieB said:
It does, at least in some cases.

There are more than a few pilots on COPA who will tell you that there are flights they will make in a Cirrus that they would not make without the CAPS - at night, over mountainous terrain, that sort of thing.

"Risk Homeostasis" is real.
Click to expand...
It's easy to imagine COPA pilots saying that but I'm not sure it means that it's true.

Ask most pilots, most of the time, "what do you think is the most important gizmo to have in your plane" and the answer will usually be the gizmo that they've been flying with. "I never will fly near thunderstorms without my gizmo and it's safer than the gizmo I don't have."

Which is not to say that CAPS is unworthy of such thinking.
 
Dude walks away from a crash alive and we have 8 pages debating if he did it right.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Dude walks away from a crash alive and we have 8 pages debating if he did it right.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile, the idiot who VFR'd into IMC in a Lance and became a giant Popsicle last month would have easily been alive if he had CAPS.

My other half has already said that the next one will be an older SR-22...because why not have the best chance of surviving a major failure?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Meanwhile, the idiot who VFR'd into IMC in a Lance and became a giant Popsicle last month would have easily been alive if he had CAPS.

My other half has already said that the next one will be an older SR-22...because why not have the best chance of surviving a major failure?


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

Uhh...not sure how well a BRS would do you in a death spiral. Dude pulled the airplane apart - I've inadvertently found myself in some seriously bad icing and as long as you keep your speed up, fly the airplane, and land as soon as possible you have a pretty damn good chance. Ripping the airplane apart at altitude because you oversped/over stressed the airframe wouldn't make one lick of difference with a parachute.
 
N801BH said:
The dude CREATED his own crash...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bingo.

In this case if he HAD done it right, he never would have needed the chute and we wouldn't be having this debate.

Again I reiterate: Cirrus did right. BRS did right. The pilot.....not so much. He'll live to take his 709 ride.
 
Silvaire said:
Have not seen the ones in mountains but if you hit a slope or canyon edge the chute is done and you're going to cartwheel down the hill or over the cliff just like any other untethered object and you're not going to have any means of controlling it.
Click to expand...

It seems that typically the plane slides downslope a ways, dragging the chute behind, until it lodges against something solid.

Sure, one can imagine all sorts of horrible outcomes, like going over a cliff, but I still hold that the vast majority will be less dramatic at 17 kts vertically than 60 kts horizontally - with the latter carrying about 16x more energy if my mental math is right.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
Dude walks away from a crash alive and we have 8 pages debating if he did it right.
Click to expand...

People are quick to criticize POA for long winded discussions of things like this but I think that this is the beauty of POA....

I don't know about you but I find talk about accidents completely helpful. I always try to put myself in the situation of the pilot and figure out how not to let that happen to me. It is not debatable to me that CAPS saved this pilot's and his passenger's life, what is debatable and why the pilot ended up in that situation to begin with. Looking at this crash judging from all information available at present this crash was totally preventable....

Any time we can talk about contributing factors to a crash allows me to make sure I follow all practices to make my flights more safe!
 
Everskyward said:
Posting this because I just realized it is this accident he is writing about.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/real-time-drama-in-the-skies-cont/423420/
Click to expand...

This is fantastic! And it also seems that no one in POA attempted to read it as it clears up why he was unable to land. (at least in Charlotte...)

One thing the article states is that they stopped in Erie, PA for customs. I assumed the probably got some gas there. It's 413 NM to Charlotte, with only two folks onboard I doubt they were running into weight issues so they should have had full fuel.

What's the typical range of a fully fueled SR22?
 
Guy yanks the chute on a perfectly good airplane with 45 minutes of gas, and the Cirrus guys defend him "oooh, he's still alive!". Moron would have lived through watching TV sitting on his couch or taking the airlines. Cirri are fast, he could have used his 45 minutes of fuel to get to some VFR conditions perhaps?

I've heard of saves from airframe parts making a sudden departure and other things the pilot really couldn't control. Lately they seem to be stuff like this, saving a subpar pilot from his own idiocy. If I need a parachute to save me from myself it is past time to get out of the sky.
 
labbadabba said:
This is fantastic! And it also seems that no one in POA attempted to read it as it clears up why he was unable to land. (at least in Charlotte...)

One thing the article states is that they stopped in Erie, PA for customs. I assumed the probably got some gas there. It's 413 NM to Charlotte, with only two folks onboard I doubt they were running into weight issues so they should have had full fuel.

What's the typical range of a fully fueled SR22?
Click to expand...

996b6faea.jpg


FWIW, the article states a few times that he's low on gas. Anyway, what do you think happened here? It looks like he's lined up well for 36R but then drifts left.
 
labbadabba said:
This is fantastic! And it also seems that no one in POA attempted to read it as it clears up why he was unable to land. (at least in Charlotte...)
Click to expand...
I suspect several of us have read it. Just what do you think it clears up?

Note, the update on the article (which includes the tower tape) makes it even worse - if you listen to that tape, the tower tells him he is drifting left of course (gave him an opportunity to correct) before they cancelled his landing clearance and sent him missed.
 
rbridges said:
FWIW, the article states a few times that he's low on gas. Anyway, what do you think happened here? It looks like he's lined up well for 36R but then drifts left.
Click to expand...

Dunno, he's clearly lined up and when he jogs left it's a fairly abrupt and straight change so:

1. 36C has a MALSR vs 36R which just has REILS so it may have been the first runway sighted when emerging from the clouds. The pilot did not seem terribly familiar with the area and maybe wasn't aware that there were 3 parallel runways.

-or-

2. The pilot may have loaded a parallel approach into 36C by accident and the AP took him from the waypoint at DH for 36R to 36C.

However given the fact that his flight path appeared to be hand-flown up to that point, I think he simply flew to the first runway in sight especially knowing that he was almost out of gas. Had he declared an emergency ATC would not have waved him off.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
I suspect several of us have read it. Just what do you think it clears up?

Note, the update on the article (which includes the tower tape) makes it even worse - if you listen to that tape, the tower tells him he is drifting left of course (gave him an opportunity to correct) before they cancelled his landing clearance and sent him missed.
Click to expand...

It clears up why he was unable to land at Charlotte. It obviously doesn't address the fact that he could have landed earlier elsewhere but it corroborates the report that the pilot attempted to land and was 'unable.' Which we thought was a curious turn of phrase.

My real burning question is how he ran out of gas after just 413 miles.
 
rbridges said:
FWIW, the article states a few times that he's low on gas. Anyway, what do you think happened here? It looks like he's lined up well for 36R but then drifts left.
Click to expand...
If you go all the way to the bottom of the article (updated from the original post) it has the tower tape included. On that tape you hear tower tell him that he is drifting left of the localizer. Later they tell him he is still drifting left toward 36C and cancel his landing clearance (at which point his response to the cancelled landing clearance Is that he has the field in sight).

It really does sound look like he somehow zeroed in and headed straight for 36C when he broke out and completely ignored what the panel and tower controller were trying to tell him.

With a right cross wind, how he even would have been looking toward 36C enough to fail to notice 36R when he broke out is beyond me.
 
labbadabba said:
It clears up why he was unable to land at Charlotte. It obviously doesn't address the fact that he could have landed earlier elsewhere but it corroborates the report that the pilot attempted to land and was 'unable.' Which we thought was a curious turn of phrase.
Click to expand...
Again, I think most of us did read it. We already knew that.

labbadabba said:
My real burning question is how he ran out of gas after just 413 miles.
Click to expand...
I am wondering that as well. I am still not sure we know if he did actually run out of gas, or if he just gave up after two failed approaches and pulled the chute in defeat.

We also don't really know why he couldn't complete the initial approach to Concord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top