Lightning strike causes CAPS deployment in Cirrus on ground

FastEddieB

FastEddieB

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
11,865
Location
Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Display Name
Fast Eddie B
Home Airfield
Big T Airport (80TN)
Developing story: around noon a parked Cirrus at Lynchburg, VA was allegedly struck by lightning, which caused the BRS rocket to ignite.
 
Last edited:
A parked and empty F-4 blew a canopy at Kadena back in the day. No lightening strike, though - just another Martin-Baker attempt at murder. . .
 
Dear insurance agent,

My plane got hit by lightning then committed suicide. Please send a big check.
 
Didn't Cirrus switch from a mechanical igniter to an electrical one a few years ago? I wonder which one this had.
 
This had the electrically ignited one.

Much gnashing of teeth over on COPA concerning what might happen if this had occurred in flight.

There was concern when they made the switch - it's an expensive conversion at the first repack, and the original mechanical system was pretty robust in its simplicity.

But as I said, the story is still developing.
 
paflyer said:
That is fing hilarious!


As an aside, why do idiots shoot phone video vertically?
Click to expand...
The new generation doesn't know that we survived so many years to come from 4:3 to 16:9 and beyond. All they know is a vertical phone screens and don't know what we went through.
 
Sundancer said:
A parked and empty F-4 blew a canopy at Kadena back in the day. No lightening strike, though - just another Martin-Baker attempt at murder. . .
Click to expand...
In '71? (it's getting hard to remember dates) a crew chief jumped into the front seat of an F-4E and got shoved halfway through the roof of the hanger. Again, a Martin-Baker malfunction.
 
Shepherd said:
In '71? (it's getting hard to remember dates) a crew chief jumped into the front seat of an F-4E and got shoved halfway through the roof of the hanger. Again, a Martin-Baker malfunction.
Click to expand...
Getting fuzzy for me, as well! I think this one was outside, parked on the ramp, and no one around - it just lit off, but no injuries. But early 70's for sure.
 
It does have a Wile E. Coyote aspect. . .The Acme Parachute and Tomato Company.

You know, if it happened in flight, it might never be discovered - pilot enters T-storm, loss of control, takes a lightening strike, deploys chute in desperation, etc.
 
Sundancer said:
You know, if it happened in flight, it might never be discovered - pilot enters T-storm, loss of control, takes a lightening strike, deploys chute in desperation, etc.
Click to expand...

Actually... I'm wondering why this occurred. Imagine same pilot as above, flying into or near a Thunderstorm at cruise speed and the parachute deploys by itself. Ugh.
 
rbridges said:
They need to issue an AD for every cirrus. :D
Click to expand...

I could see this as a potential outcome (maybe not likely, but possible). I would think that having an un-commanded deployment of the chute is an airworthiness concern.

A Cirrus owner I spoke with yesterday was thinking about this possibility as well.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
What would happen if it deployed in cruise?
Click to expand...

It would likely work as designed.

The maximum demonstrated CAPS speed is 133KIAS. Here's the placard:
48544_800.jpg


But I believe there was a successful deployment at 200k. And with Cirrus' often flying fairly high, their cruise IAS may be not much higher than 133k anyway.

Note: the above is in no way meant to minimize the potential seriousness of an uncommanded deployment.
 
Last edited:
First time I've read that cover. Hey @SixPapaCharlie - Does the transition training include demonstrating the "Both hand, maximum force steady pull without jerking?
 
Electrical ignitors. In something that will be near clouds, static, lightening.

Cirrously????
 
FastEddieB said:
It would likely work as designed.

The maximum demonstrated CAPS speed is 133KIAS.

But I believe there was a successful deployment at 200k. And with Cirrus' often flying fairly high, their cruise IAS may be not much higher than 133k anyway.

Note: the above is in no way meant to minimize the potential seriousness of an uncommanded deployment.
Click to expand...

Actually 190 is the highest, 4 total that exceeded the max limit. But the max limit is for all attitudes, for example being inverted and exceeding the limit may not get the same result.
It's interesting you have to cut off the engine, I wonder how many "saves" occurred with a running engine?
 
teejayevans said:
It's interesting you have to cut off the engine, I wonder how many "saves" occurred with a running engine?
Click to expand...

It occurred to some that if you left the engine running, you might have the option of steering the descent with rudder - away from a power station, let's say. Allegedly the problem is the forward motion imparted would affect the shape of the canopy, leading to a higher descent rate, which is already fairly high.
 
I don't see this on COPA. Have you posted it there Ed? I'm skeptical until there is more info.
 
Ok thanks. That's like in the basement of the forum that I never go to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top