Cirrus driver opts for urban highway over chute

I wonder if the pilot will lose his Cirrus privileges over this, or will he be given remedial instruction in chute deployment?

The guy getting out the plane seemed young, so I hope he'll be given a chance to learn from his mistake.
 
Another life saved by not using the chute.

At least that’s how it’s framed when a chute is used.
 
Fly the plane. Insurance thanks him.
 
Interesting attitudes of many here. CAPS is quite useful, but certainly if one is fully aware of the situation and can land, then why not? If one is dazed and confused, well, pull the handle.
Prolly had a counterweight break loose.
 
In the heat of the moment I can't say how I would have reacted but I commend the pilot for NOT pulling the CAPS when he felt he had a suitable alternative that also spared much damage to the aircraft and possibly himself.
 
robin ardoin said:
In the heat of the moment I can't say how I would have reacted but I commend the pilot for NOT pulling the CAPS when he felt he had a suitable alternative that also spared much damage to the aircraft and possibly himself.
Click to expand...

The Cirrus chute needs maintenance every 3 years and costs $15,000. Not much sense buying crash insurance if you are going to attempt suicide.
 
Clip4 said:
The Cirrus chute needs maintenance every 3 years and costs $15,000. Not much sense buying crash insurance if you are going to attempt suicide.
Click to expand...

Every 10 years. And the price has gone up.
We just replaced our chute. It was $23,000.

Due to supply chain issues, they granted us a 2 year extension to get it repacked and the rocket replaced. I guess for 2 years we were in an experimental death trap.
 
Clip4 said:
The Cirrus chute needs maintenance every 3 years and costs $15,000. Not much sense buying crash insurance if you are going to attempt suicide.
Click to expand...
Do you really think a CAPS pull event will only require a chute repack? Every event I have studied suggest a wee bit of other repair required;). Again, None of us were in the other front seat with the pilot but, based on the outcome, I think his decision making and piloting skills were more than adequate.
 
A report in the Cirrus forum indicated an engine failure and the PIC attempted to troubleshoot. By the time troubleshooting options were exhausted, it was too low for a CAPS pull. Nice work by the pilot.
 
I don't know the area, but how densely populated was the area around the highway? If the area was pretty populated, there may have had a worse outcome if he'd pulled the chute and relinquished directional control.
 
Racerx said:
Fly the plane. Insurance thanks him.
Click to expand...

(This is from memory, but) Wasn't there a case of insurance refusing coverage for a Cirrus because the POH called for pulling the chute and the pilot landed instead?
 
I don't know the Cirrus variants very well -- aren't some setup with no propeller control? I assume those don't glide nicely if you can't pull the prop back to [not fine, but low RPM/low drag]?

Nice work regardless.

Edit: Props outsmart me.
 
Last edited:
From my time as a Cirrus driver, the mantra was “Consider CAPS”.

IOW, make sure it’s in your decision tree when things go awry. The final decision may or may not involve a chute pull. Weighing on that decision is that a chute pull within the recommended limits are virtually 100% successful. The off-airport landing attempts have a much lower success rate.
 
schmookeeg said:
I don't know the Cirrus variants very well -- aren't some setup with no propeller control? I assume those don't glide nicely if you can't pull the prop back to fine?
Click to expand...

Virtually no Cirrus has a separate prop control, though there was/is an STC to add one. If the power lever is all the way forward, that would put the prop in fine pitch. Anyway, are you suggesting fine pitch increases the glide distance? I would have thought the opposite to be true. Think maximum coarse pitch being as close to feathered as possible. Right?
 
SkyChaser said:
I don't know the area, but how densely populated was the area around the highway? If the area was pretty populated, there may have had a worse outcome if he'd pulled the chute and relinquished directional control.
Click to expand...

He landed and ended up on the off-ramp. After looking at street view he was northbound.

Map image won’t upload here at work … google map link:


Dropped pin
https://maps.google.com?q=40.5583306,-111.9768858&hl=en-US&gl=us&entry=gps&lucs=47062720
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Virtually no Cirrus has a separate prop control, though there was/is an STC to add one. If the power lever is all the way forward, that would put the prop in fine pitch. Anyway, are you suggesting fine pitch increases the glide distance? I would have thought the opposite to be true. Think maximum coarse pitch being as close to feathered as possible. Right?
Click to expand...

Argh, this is why I always say high RPM and low RPM because I think of the blade vs relative wind.

You understood my point though. Without the ability to pull the prop back, I assume these do not glide very well?
 
robin ardoin said:
Do you really think a CAPS pull event will only require a chute repack? Every event I have studied suggest a wee bit of other repair required;). Again, None of us were in the other front seat with the pilot but, based on the outcome, I think his decision making and piloting skills were more than adequate.
Click to expand...
Yea, filling out that insurance claim form and endorsing the check is a bit burdensome.
 
Seems like the pilot performed a Great off-airport landing. As far as CAPS, I'm not sure how any CAPS deployment could result in a landing as Great as this.
 
I've griped about this before. You do a superlative job of landing the airplane without damage, insurance pays bupkis and you eat the engine out of pocket.

You pop the chute, you cash their check, and you go airplane shopping. Likely to be back in the air faster in these days of 12mo lead times on engine overhauls. Having a "total the airplane" lever is nearly as valuable as the safety factor of the chute. Just have to make sure you're not underinsured.

If I flew a cirrus, the chute would be my first option unless, like skychaser brought up, I was over a residential neighborhood, or a school for blind children, or a football stadium full of puppies.
 
Yep, it’s sad that a “save” is probably more expensive than choosing the “totaled” route.

BTDT
 
Jim K said:
If I flew a cirrus, the chute would be my first option unless, like skychaser brought up, I was over a residential neighborhood, or a school for blind children, or a football stadium full of puppies.
Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable concern. Still, with over 120 successful CAPS pulls, I don’t believe a single one has so much as injured anyone on the ground. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but I’d put it pretty far down on the list of things to worry about.
 
Jim K said:
I've griped about this before. You do a superlative job of landing the airplane without damage, insurance pays bupkis and you eat the engine out of pocket.

You pop the chute, you cash their check, and you go airplane shopping. Likely to be back in the air faster in these days of 12mo lead times on engine overhauls. Having a "total the airplane" lever is nearly as valuable as the safety factor of the chute. Just have to make sure you're not underinsured.

If I flew a cirrus, the chute would be my first option unless, like skychaser brought up, I was over a residential neighborhood, or a school for blind children, or a football stadium full of puppies.
Click to expand...

Which is funny as I believe the insurance policy language includes a duty to prevent further damage to the plane. If everyone popped-and-shopped, I think insurance would look a little deeper into that decision tree. :D But then they might also allow for repairs or downtime compensation to remove the moral hazard and temptation? Who knows.

Your approach is definitely rational. I've had those "hmmm if I lost an engine ugly-like and was facing nutty expenses... would I just gear the monkey up and go dry my tears on a large-column check?" -- When I was tested on this point 2 weeks ago, though, I opted for the normal landing. Luckily the destroyed mill was still under warranty. :D

If it was the other side though... hmmm... :dunno: TBD
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Interesting attitudes of many here. CAPS is quite useful, but certainly if one is fully aware of the situation and can land, then why not? If one is dazed and confused, well, pull the handle.
Prolly had a counterweight break loose.
Click to expand...
I think your humor meter is malfunctioning.
 
The concept that with an engine failure, pull the chute, cash the check, buy a new plane.

Versus

Land the plane, pay for the repairs, and wait for a year for them to be done.


Does not really work that way. The insurance company will subtract the price of the engine from the check, which is for the price of a used plane with the same equipment list. You are still without a plane until you can find a used plane that is in similar condition, priced as the insurance company estimated yours was worth. Then add the price of the engine, out of your pocket, pay for a prepurchase inspection, and buy the plane. Then you find out why the owner put his “nice, clean” airplane up for sale.


The successful landing, pay to have the wings removed, and hauled to a suitable repair facility. Then you buy an engine with fewer hours than your failed one, switch engines, and sell the broken one for parts. You are now back in the air, with a plane that is exactly like the one you had. You’re out of pocket is about the same, and there are no unknowns on the condition of the ‘new’ plane.



Purely from my memory, in more than 50 years, our club has had:

2 off airport landings, changed engines in the pastures, and flew out. Cost of the mechanic and engine.

1 off airport, successful, but hit by a twister, totaled while in the custody of the insurance company. Value of the plane minus the engine.

About 4 or 5 engine emergencies that successfully glided to an airport, and were repaired. I experienced the classic windshield covered with oil, made a good ILS approach and landing. Even if you only bought gas, check the oil cap before restarting the engine.

We never lacked a plane for more than a month, except for that one totaled while in the custody of the insurance company, and took legal threat, over 3 months.

How long do you wait for a replacement Cirrus these days, if you pull the chute in the first year and opt for a new replacement?

And how long does it take to actually receive that check?
 
Jim K said:
I've griped about this before. You do a superlative job of landing the airplane without damage, insurance pays bupkis and you eat the engine out of pocket.

You pop the chute, you cash their check, and you go airplane shopping. Likely to be back in the air faster in these days of 12mo lead times on engine overhauls. Having a "total the airplane" lever is nearly as valuable as the safety factor of the chute. Just have to make sure you're not underinsured.

If I flew a cirrus, the chute would be my first option unless, like skychaser brought up, I was over a residential neighborhood, or a school for blind children, or a football stadium full of puppies.
Click to expand...
But if it was cats.... you're landing that sucker!
 
texasclouds said:
$23amu every decade? Ooooofffff
Click to expand...

A few years ago, one of my newly certificated students bought an SR-20. I asked him if he knew that the parachute had to be repacked every ten years, at that time a cost of about $10,000. His response: "Don't tell my wife." I wonder how he feels about that now.
 
This guy landed the plane, and walked out of it without a scratch, from the looks of that aircraft. I know that's not a certain outcome on a road, but I'm much rather do that than have a parachute pop, and if all goes well let me hit the ground flat at 10+ mph down.

I don't fly a Cirrus, but if I did I wouldn't be doing cost of replacement math in the air. I'd be picking the option that seems to be lowest risk of injury to me, passengers, and people on the ground.
 
I think the pilot may have been very lucky. Landing on streets is risky. Consider that about a year ago a plane attempted to land on a bridge in Miami and hit a minivan carrying a mother and two kids who were taken to the hospital (don't know if they had any injuries) and the pilot of the plane died.

In this case, it appears that the plane lost power in cruise while on autopilot. Looking at the track log, the plane was flying at 13,000' and 160kts when the speed dropped rapidly but the altitude stayed level. This would seem to indicate that the power was lost but the A/P was trying to maintain altitude. This is all conjecture. But that seems a too early to begin a decent for Ogden.

Then the plane begins about a 1,000fpm descent at 120 to 100kts. A quick search shows best glide as 92kts. Had the pilot trimmed for best glide, they may have made it to South Valley Regional Airport 4 miles further. As it was the plane traveled about 15 miles from the last cruise altitude to where it landed on the road.

From the point that the airspeed dropped and the descent began, the plane was within a mile of Cedar Valley Airport (private and a dirt strip). About 8 miles behind was West Desert Airpark with a 2,600' asphalt runway.
 
I understand that a chute pull in a Cirrus does not always result in a soft landing and that the airframe may be significantly damaged by the impact, although occupants escape with minor, or no injuries. Are there any statistics available on how many Cirrus chute-pull airplanes are written off vs. repaired to fly again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top