Hypoxic SR22 driver's non-pilot wife descends and saves their lives

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,471
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
Local news is covering this one today...

9News: http://bit.ly/jZ80YR
Transcript: http://bit.ly/iCZFif

I had my dad and my wife both take the ASF's "Pinch-Hitter" online course. I also try to keep them in the loop of where we are and what we're doing in case I were to ever become incapacitated.

Notable items from the transcript:

- Controllers are awesome people. 'nuff said about that.

- Nice job by the Great Lakes guys trying to help out.

- The infamous Cirrus "Straight and Level" button is mentioned by the wife.

- The controllers talk about having her pull the 'chute to survive if the pilot never regains consciousness.

- Wife mentions that husband is on oxygen but not responding. I hope a) the tank was empty, or b) he's going to go get himself checked out!

You gotta watch out for hypoxia in the Southwest... our en route altitudes are pretty high.
 
Hmm, isn't this the prime case that Cirrus markets the parachute for? :yes: But yet, no use of the parachute. Interesting, isn't it?
 
It tell this to Cirri pilots 'till I'm blue in the face. They gush about the Cirri's technology. But the human is very low tech.

Worse, they have the $$s to have backup systems, pulse oximeters (cheap) and big secondary oxygen systems. But they just use that teeny little OEM tank they built in.

S&L button? How about an emergency descent button? How about automated descent to 10,000 when you're out of oxygen? How about Joe six pack riding in a totally automated pilotless drone? Airmanship? Whassat? Sigh.
 
bbchien said:
It tell this to Cirri pilots 'till I'm blue in the face. They gush about the Cirri's technology. But the human is very low tech.

Worse, they have the $$s to have backup systems, pulse oximeters (cheap) and big secondary oxygen systems. But they just use that teeny little OEM tank they built in.

S&L button? How about an emergency descent button? How about automated descent to 10,000 when you're out of oxygen? How about Joe six pack riding in a totally automated pilotless drone? Airmanship? Whassat? Sigh.
Click to expand...

Sooner than you think ...

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Pilot-Not-Included.html

the new flight school

Pilot-not-included-8-GALL.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's an archie right there, I bet.
 
bbchien said:
S&L button? How about an emergency descent button? How about automated descent to 10,000 when you're out of oxygen? How about Joe six pack riding in a totally automated pilotless drone? Airmanship? Whassat? Sigh.
Click to expand...

I have about the same gripes with most Cirrus pilots. Especially when they profess about the merits of the parachute. "Tell me again how that parachute will get you safely to the nearest airport?"

There are some things that make poor uses of modern technology. Think of the anvil. Been around for centuries (nay, millennia!), and is as simple of a device as one can produce, using low-tech cast iron. How can one improve upon the anvil? To use modern materials would make it less useful. Other than improving the casting process some, there isn't much else one can do.

Aircraft, although they serve an effectively opposite function, are similar in the fact that they function very well as low-tech devices. I like my high-tech cars and motorcycles. I like my low-tech aircraft.
 
Anthony said:
Are your avionics low tech? Do you have XM weather, moving map GPS, electronic charts, etc?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to the overall aircraft structure and design. A traditional metal aircraft is preferable to me.

But compared to a Cirrus, my avionics are pretty low tech, and I like it that way. I don't have an Avidyne or a G1000 (and don't want one). The highest tech panel I fly in the 310 is a 530 with a backup Nav/Com and a traditional 6-pack, other than the HSI. Left side is all electric, right side is all vacuum. My failure modes are very desirable - I lose any one piece of equipment, and it doesn't matter. I have so much backup, and each one piece of equipment (other than the 530) is just that - one piece of equipment.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have about the same gripes with most Cirrus pilots. Especially when they profess about the merits of the parachute. "Tell me again how that parachute will get you safely to the nearest airport?"

There are some things that make poor uses of modern technology. Think of the anvil. Been around for centuries (nay, millennia!), and is as simple of a device as one can produce, using low-tech cast iron. How can one improve upon the anvil? To use modern materials would make it less useful. Other than improving the casting process some, there isn't much else one can do.

Aircraft, although they serve an effectively opposite function, are similar in the fact that they function very well as low-tech devices. I like my high-tech cars and motorcycles. I like my low-tech aircraft.
Click to expand...

I believe in this case, it was the high tech controls that allowed a non pilot to descend to a level where the pilot could regain conciousness and land the aircraft. You can complain all you want about the merits of this or that and the mentality of "Ciirus pilots," but a malfunction or emptiness of any oxygen on any plane at that altitude could easily cause the same problem in any plane with any pilot. The fact that they had the bells and whistles of the Cirrus allowed the woman, who knew only a little about flying the plane, to rescue the pilot and herself from almost certain death. Had he been hand flying and had no functioning autopilot for the airplane, how different do you think the outcome would have been?

This was not a "Cirrus pilot" mistake. This was an oversight, or even a malfunction, of the oxygen system. That could happen to anyone, especially to an older person who may be more prone to hypoxia. I think it is unfair to point the finger at "Cirrus Pilots" for this particular situation.
 
Bryon, the failure was definitely low-tech. There was one that happened to a Mooney Pilot, actually a Urologist with whom I had a passing acquaintance. He sold his 10,000 hour Skylane after his Reno based mech told him it was getting to be too much to maintain, and bought on of the first Mooney Bravos. At FL 21 on the way home, the bottle ran out. He descended into FLG and the engine quit- he had not enrichened the mixture. He was 3,000 above the field and well within 10:1, but he never cleaned it up.

We found him wandering around in the ponderosas about 1/2 mile north of the field.

BRIGHT and SHINY.
 
Aztec Driver said:
I believe in this case, it was the high tech controls that allowed a non pilot to descend to a level where the pilot could regain conciousness and land the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Plus she still had the option of pulling the chute if necessary.
 
They were apparently outside the speed envelope of the chute. My wife knows how to set power and trim for 90, and how to make the houses get bigger.....VERY low tech.
 
Aztec Driver said:
I believe in this case, it was the high tech controls that allowed a non pilot to descend to a level where the pilot could regain conciousness and land the aircraft. You can complain all you want about the merits of this or that and the mentality of "Ciirus pilots," but a malfunction or emptiness of any oxygen on any plane at that altitude could easily cause the same problem in any plane with any pilot. The fact that they had the bells and whistles of the Cirrus allowed the woman, who knew only a little about flying the plane, to rescue the pilot and herself from almost certain death. Had he been hand flying and had no functioning autopilot for the airplane, how different do you think the outcome would have been?

This was not a "Cirrus pilot" mistake. This was an oversight, or even a malfunction, of the oxygen system. That could happen to anyone, especially to an older person who may be more prone to hypoxia. I think it is unfair to point the finger at "Cirrus Pilots" for this particular situation.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Why is it that when this happens in a Baron and the pilot dies (as I've read about in AOPA Pilot's Never Again) it's a tragedy, but when it happens in a Cirrus and the wife is able to use the airplane and the tools at her disposal to get them down safely...it's because the Cirrus has too much technology and their pilots are stupid?

Who cares if they have a parachute? It's just another tool. I promise you that even though I would only use it as a last resort, my wife would be more comfortable flying in a plane that had one. Even if that comfort is a bit misguided...it's still worth something. The wife in this story didn't use it, but I bet she knew it was there and knew that it was an option. I bet that it helped keep her calm in a very tense situation.

I've seen stupid pilots fly all makes and models of aircraft. Can we give Cirrus a break already? Good lord...
 
bbchien said:
They were apparently outside the speed envelope of the chute. My wife knows how to set power and trim for 90, and how to make the houses get bigger.....VERY low tech.
Click to expand...
The passenger also could have slowed the airplane down first, but she was lucky the pilot regained consciousness. I think most passengers would have more luck pulling the chute than trying to land unless they have had some exposure to airplanes. They probably aren't trained at all, not nearly as well as your wife, I imagine. :)
 
It's not a matter of technology or Cirrus. It's a matter of either not loading the O2 system or running it out by the clock. It's a matter of humans thinking they can "get away with it" at 16,000.

You need to have more O2 than fuel, or you will get stupid and do stupid things.

Actually, I would LOVE to have the equipment for "emergency descent while incapacitated" to 10,000. Just like the big boys. But there is NO substitute for prep and monitoring, and briefing/training the person in the other seat.
 
Last edited:
Has there been any mention anywhere of the oxygen system being out? From what i read they were both on masks and for some reason the husband's failed. The wife was still ok so I'm wondering what failed. If they tank had gone dry then they both would have had the problems. While different people react differently I would think the wife would have had some symptoms if she did not have 02.
 
She did. She too was not normal, + the panic. Think about what a steep his that was!

I was rescued by my copilot from FL 230 in the 1994 Aircraft Spruce race. The next thing I remember was, him asking for FL 190. My line had come apart. Redundancy is a very good thing; it's HOSTILE up there.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Sorry, I was referring to the overall aircraft structure and design. A traditional metal aircraft is preferable to me.

But compared to a Cirrus, my avionics are pretty low tech, and I like it that way. I don't have an Avidyne or a G1000 (and don't want one). The highest tech panel I fly in the 310 is a 530 with a backup Nav/Com and a traditional 6-pack, other than the HSI. Left side is all electric, right side is all vacuum. My failure modes are very desirable - I lose any one piece of equipment, and it doesn't matter. I have so much backup, and each one piece of equipment (other than the 530) is just that - one piece of equipment.
Click to expand...


Count me in for this philosophy, but I wanted to make the clear distinction. Even in our low tech aircraft, and my Tiger is as low tech as it gets, we've come along way with the technology that is available in our "low tech" aircraft.
 
bbchien said:
Bryon, the failure was definitely low-tech. There was one that happened to a Mooney Pilot, actually a Urologist with whom I had a passing acquaintance. He sold his 10,000 hour Skylane after his Reno based mech told him it was getting to be too much to maintain, and bought on of the first Mooney Bravos. At FL 21 on the way home, the bottle ran out. He descended into FLG and the engine quit- he had not enrichened the mixture. He was 3,000 above the field and well within 10:1, but he never cleaned it up.

We found him wandering around in the ponderosas about 1/2 mile north of the field.

BRIGHT and SHINY.
Click to expand...


I think GA would be much safer if FADEC were available as STC on EVERY airplane. Lycoming has something, but right now its considered experimental. How many hoops will they (and other developers) have to jump through???

Dr Bruce, correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking do women have higher tolerance in Low O2 situations?
 
There is a whole class of pilots out there who won't buy a handheld radio for their nordo aircraft now. You think that they will but a new engine for FADEC?
 
Don't care what they would buy. I know that if it were available, I'd be an advocate of it and I think it could be a contributor to safety, longer engine life, easier learning curves and can possibly improve GA retention (through lower costs- fuel, maint, etc).
 
Jaybird180 said:
Dr Bruce, correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking do women have higher tolerance in Low O2 situations?
Click to expand...

Only the airheads. Ditzy is a way of life with them!
 
FlyNE said:
I agree 100%.

Why is it that when this happens in a Baron and the pilot dies (as I've read about in AOPA Pilot's Never Again) it's a tragedy, but when it happens in a Cirrus and the wife is able to use the airplane and the tools at her disposal to get them down safely...it's because the Cirrus has too much technology and their pilots are stupid?

Who cares if they have a parachute? It's just another tool. I promise you that even though I would only use it as a last resort, my wife would be more comfortable flying in a plane that had one. Even if that comfort is a bit misguided...it's still worth something. The wife in this story didn't use it, but I bet she knew it was there and knew that it was an option. I bet that it helped keep her calm in a very tense situation.

I've seen stupid pilots fly all makes and models of aircraft. Can we give Cirrus a break already? Good lord...
Click to expand...


+1:yes:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think GA would be much safer if FADEC were available as STC on EVERY airplane. Lycoming has something, but right now its considered experimental. How many hoops will they (and other developers) have to jump through???
Click to expand...


Then your FADEC craps out and you're really screwed.

Simple is good, let's not blame a training failure on the aircraft.:mad2:

As far as Cirrus bashing, well they are:
Fast
Efficent
Safe
Easy to maintain
and increasingly cheap.
 
Skylane81E said:
Then your FADEC craps out and you're really screwed.

.
Click to expand...


About the only engine not run by a FADEC is 'certified' GA aircraft. Cars and commercial/military aircraft went to FADECs in the 80s and on-highway trucks in the 90s. Twenty years later...... GA .. well.

I would feel perfectly comforable with a dual redundant FADEC.
 
Just about every driver I know of has had a break down due to FADEC failures, only personaly know of two aircraft issues with non FADEC engines and honestly there really won't be too much benefit untill we get to DI aircraft engines (probably about 50-100 years down the road)

Now adjustable ignition timming (LASAR style) I like.
 
Baron2PG said:
About the only engine not run by a FADEC is 'certified' GA aircraft. Cars and commercial/military aircraft went to FADECs in the 80s and on-highway trucks in the 90s. Twenty years later...... GA .. well.

I would feel perfectly comforable with a dual redundant FADEC.
Click to expand...

We have the technology
 
FlyNE said:
I've seen stupid pilots fly all makes and models of aircraft. Can we give Cirrus a break already? Good lord...
Click to expand...
It's just jealousy. BTW, my DPE arrived for my checkride in a Cirrus that he borrowed from a buddy at his home base to make it on time. I think at least some Cirrus owners are allright.
 
Baron2PG said:
I would feel perfectly comforable with a dual redundant FADEC.
Click to expand...

I would so long as I was limiting my flights to an area with an appropriate support network.

For the flights that I do, the support network does not exist. That's a growing pains issue. But for the time being, it eliminates the FADEC option for me.
 
zaitcev said:
It's just jealousy.
Click to expand...

Im gonna get flamed for this, but here it goes. Most Cirrus drivers I have met are pompous, and can't make it through 2 sentences of conversation without mentioning how awesome they are. I've met probably 10 Cirrus owners, and only 2 of which I'd care to speak to again. Blah blah blah BRS blah blah blah Glass cockpit blah blah blah cooler than you blah blah blah it's so safe.
 
DavidWhite said:
Im gonna get flamed for this, but here it goes. Most Cirrus drivers I have met are pompous, and can't make it through 2 sentences of conversation without mentioning how awesome they are. I've met probably 10 Cirrus owners, and only 2 of which I'd care to speak to again. Blah blah blah BRS blah blah blah Glass cockpit blah blah blah cooler than you blah blah blah it's so safe.
Click to expand...

Cirrus is, above all, a great marketing company.

The problem seems to be who they attract more than the planes themselves. Much like the V-tail Bonanza, it will have the reputation it does until its owner base changes some.

That, and the people who don't just genuinely dislike the planes are probably jealous they can't afford one. ;)
 
DavidWhite said:
Never said I wouldn't like to own one;)
Click to expand...

I did. But that's because of my preferences in construction.

If I was looking at a plane with the option of a chute, yes, I would probably get the option.
 
I'm not a big fan of the composite construction either, but if someone gave me one I wouldn't say no
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would so long as I was limiting my flights to an area with an appropriate support network.

For the flights that I do, the support network does not exist. That's a growing pains issue. But for the time being, it eliminates the FADEC option for me.
Click to expand...
As you fly more complex airplanes don't be surprised if you need to fly the mechanic in with the part. That goes for a fair number of non-remote places too. Or maybe I should say that you don't need to be in the wilds of Canada to be remote from knowledgeable maintenance. Many places in the US are like that too.
 
Everskyward said:
As you fly more complex airplanes don't be surprised if you need to fly the mechanic in with the part. That goes for a fair number of non-remote places too. Or maybe I should say that you don't need to be in the wilds of Canada to be remote from knowledgeable maintenance. Many places in the US are like that too.
Click to expand...

Certainly, we had a P-180 that was stranded here a few weeks ago when that happened. However, I'd also suspect that the relative cost of that becomes smaller as you get into a bigger aircraft. A FADEC piston aircraft will still probably be in the $200-$500/hr range to operate, much like most of the current mechanical piston aircraft that exist. If I have to fly a mechanic in and it costs me $1000, then that's a much more significant amount of relative operating time vs. a jet that costs $2000/hr to operate. The part that broke needs to be replaced regardless. I'm sure you have more experience with the realities of how this works out. I just know that with the Aztec and 310, the few times I've had to get maintenance done someplace else, it's been very, very nice to have them looked at, diagnosed, and repaired so quickly and cheaply. I know that that would not have been the case with a FADEC aircraft.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Certainly, we had a P-180 that was stranded here a few weeks ago when that happened. However, I'd also suspect that the relative cost of that becomes smaller as you get into a bigger aircraft. A FADEC piston aircraft will still probably be in the $200-$500/hr range to operate, much like most of the current mechanical piston aircraft that exist. If I have to fly a mechanic in and it costs me $1000, then that's a much more significant amount of relative operating time vs. a jet that costs $2000/hr to operate. The part that broke needs to be replaced regardless. I'm sure you have more experience with the realities of how this works out. I just know that with the Aztec and 310, the few times I've had to get maintenance done someplace else, it's been very, very nice to have them looked at, diagnosed, and repaired so quickly and cheaply. I know that that would not have been the case with a FADEC aircraft.
Click to expand...
I think all that is true. That's why when people on a budget talk about buying an aircraft I think that simpler is better. The more complex it is, the more things there are to break. This goes double if they are older. Tony has the right idea flying gliders but they are not flawless either. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top