Plane considerations

Yeti Niner Five

Yeti Niner Five

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
159
Location
Dallas
Display Name
Display name:
Yeti Niner Five
So, I'm a ~260-hour CSEL. I fly primarily out of 2 airports...KJWY for fun in tailwheels and KADS for XCs. For the XCs, I usually rent an Arrow or Bonanza through a local club.

It's KADS that's giving me concern. Flying a single engine out of there means you have almost 0 options for a forced landing in an engine out scenario. In that sense, it's not that different than flying over water or rough terrain. There just aren't many options. The risk is real enough, but to make it worse, it really bothers my wife.

I'm considering ways to mitigate that risk, particularly if I'm flying with my family. It seems like a twin, or a plane with a chute are the most obvious answers. But, I'm not sure I can fly the twin often enough to be really good at it. In which case, I'm really just trading one risk for another.

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. What's the better risk to take? How often do you need to fly a twin for it to actually be safer?
 
I know zip about twins but I too hate departing KADS.
Engine quits, you're hitting a building.

Our SR22 burns 11.5gph on a good day, 14gph average.
It is fast, no retracts, no blue handle to mess with, practically lands itself.
And there is no chance of VMC roll ;)
 
And if you are local, let me know if you want to go for a ride sometime.
 
Twins and chutes... Stats wise you'll kill your family well before your airframe will.

If you're that concerned, buy a turbine and hire a ATP.
 
Meh. I've departed KADS many-a-time in my Arrow.

Do a thorough preflight and run-up and stay on top of maintenance issues.:rolleyes:
 
Keep in mind that a chute is only good above a certain altitude... One that would likely give you enough height to return to the field. I agree that airport looks petty urban.
 
I hear you on the stats. But if it makes her more comfortable, then we'll fly more as a family. I'm thinking of ways to mitigate the risk that bothers her the most. But I have to admit, I don't like flying out of there either. I got my primary at that airport and have flown out of there a lot. But the lack of options just bother me.

I realize there are greater statistical risks than the engine out scenario. But this is the one I'm thinking about today.

Brian, I'm in Dallas. I may take you up on that flight.
 
Yeti Niner Five said:
I hear you on the stats. But if it makes her more comfortable, then we'll fly more as a family. I'm thinking of ways to mitigate the risk that bothers her the most. But I have to admit, I don't like flying out of there either. I got my primary at that airport and have flown out of there a lot. But the lack of options just bother me.

I realize there are greater statistical risks than the engine out scenario. But this is the one I'm thinking about today.

Brian, I'm in Dallas. I may take you up on that flight.
Click to expand...

Will pm you my number.
Can I pick you up at KADS w/o paying the $45 fee?
That is the real reason I don't like to fly there :)

I fly out of DTO.
 
Well the problem with going to a Cirrus is that if you have an engine out on takeoff, you can't really pull the chute anyway because you're too low so if that is your biggest fear of an engine out on takeoff you need another plan. Maybe a piston twin is in your future although the safety stats of an engine out there are not great either.

Addison has a 7200 ft runway. I used to fly 172s out of there and by the time you lift off if the takeoff roll was normal, you have a mile of runway ahead of you. It's not like it is a short runway in a city like some other places. If you have an engine issue shortly after takeoff you can still put it down, it's not like you lift off and then are over buildings immediately.
 
It's probably a toss up. If you fly a lot, like over a hundred hours a year minimum, you might be familiar enough with a twin to single engine it in an emergency. You might be. Then again maybe not. You might attempt a go round and shut down the good engine as someone I knew did. He wife, two kids died. I'd keep the single and change airports. When my mooney quit on takeoff at teterboro, I quickly put the gear back down and landed on the runway.....just barely making it. ( check out the length of teterboro runway! ) I was simply lucky as I would have gone into apartment buildings for sure. I should add here that the mooney quit due to poor maintence carried out by a lousy mechanic. A bonanza is different from a 172! Who works on what you rent?
 
Last edited:
Like someone said, a Cirrus chute won't do you any good until you got some feet under you. And for the price you pay for even the cheapest Cirrus, you can buy a good twin and have money over for perhaps thousands of hours of flying. To me it's a no-brainer, but I'm a certified twin aficionado. Singles scare me.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It's probably a toss up. If you fly a lot, like over a hundred hours a year minimum, you might be familiar enough with a twin to single engine it in an emergency. You might be.
Click to expand...

Question from a low time PPSEL, does total time per year really matter in handling an emergency? If I fly 200 hours a year in my twin and just fly cross countries and never practice engine out emergencies would I be better off than the guy that flies 80 hours a year and practices emergencies with a ME CFI every 90 days?
 
All the cross country time in the world doesn't help if you don't practice single engine procedures. Currency means practicing those engine out procedures routinely.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Which is why I don't understand why people always quote minimum hours per year to maintain twin proficiency. I would think a good recurrent training plan would be the better thing to recommend.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Which is why I don't understand why people always quote minimum hours per year to maintain twin proficiency. I would think a good recurrent training plan would be the better thing to recommend.
Click to expand...

It's like judging fitness with a bench press. You can fly 500 hours a year and still be a crap pilot.
 
narchee said:
Well the problem with going to a Cirrus is that if you have an engine out on takeoff, you can't really pull the chute anyway because you're too low so if that is your biggest fear of an engine out on takeoff you need another plan. Maybe a piston twin is in your future although the safety stats of an engine out there are not great either.

Addison has a 7200 ft runway. I used to fly 172s out of there and by the time you lift off if the takeoff roll was normal, you have a mile of runway ahead of you. It's not like it is a short runway in a city like some other places. If you have an engine issue shortly after takeoff you can still put it down, it's not like you lift off and then are over buildings immediately.
Click to expand...

The chute can be pulled at any time. The book for Cirrus says 800 feet. But it also says there is no downside to pulling it lower and mitigating the fall.

The first rule is to look for a setdown spot, set back down if some runway is left, or try the impossible turn if high enough.

If you make it to half pattern altitude pull the chute, but if over houses you will land on one either way, crashing, or somewhat less crashing with the chute pulled.
 
Last edited:
Yeti Niner Five said:
So, I'm a ~260-hour CSEL. I fly primarily out of 2 airports...KJWY for fun in tailwheels and KADS for XCs. For the XCs, I usually rent an Arrow or Bonanza through a local club.

It's KADS that's giving me concern. Flying a single engine out of there means you have almost 0 options for a forced landing in an engine out scenario. In that sense, it's not that different than flying over water or rough terrain. There just aren't many options. The risk is real enough, but to make it worse, it really bothers my wife.

I'm considering ways to mitigate that risk, particularly if I'm flying with my family. It seems like a twin, or a plane with a chute are the most obvious answers. But, I'm not sure I can fly the twin often enough to be really good at it. In which case, I'm really just trading one risk for another.

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. What's the better risk to take? How often do you need to fly a twin for it to actually be safer?
Click to expand...

You are certainly not alone in coming to this conclusion. I came to the twin conclusion a long time ago and have owned 2. Since then parachutes have become an option I like, but can't afford. I can put a lot of miles on a 310 for the difference in price with an SR-22. The old 6 pack SR-22s are a good enough value that you can upgrade them to a G-600 panel and have one with 7 years left on the chute for less than an Entegra plane that needs a repack. I have a feeling Avidyne won't survive the 540-440 investment now that the Flight Stream 210 made them irrelevant for $1000.

Twin is about training and thinking, not how much you fly it. It's about the discipline to brief every departure and know where you should use what responses. That is what gets safety in a twin.
 
LoxaBagels said:
The chute can be pulled at any time. The book for Cirrus says 800 feet. But it also says there is no downside to pulling it lower and mitigating the fall.

The first rule is to look for a setdown spot, set back down if some runway is left, or try the impossible turn if high enough.

If you make it to half pattern altitude pull the chute, but if over houses you will land on one either way, crashing, or somewhat less crashing with the chute pulled.
Click to expand...

Except there is a downside, and that is that chute deployment creates an attitude upset on the airplane, making it depart controlled flight with a really undesirable nose down attitude. It needs altitude to let the risers fully engage and stabilize the pitch. That's why it doesn't get pulled below 800AGL. Sample the Hawaii pre-planned CAPS deployment video on YT for real world sequence of how the aircraft upsets during the beginning portions of the chute deployment. That's the last thing I want the aircraft to do inside of 500AGL. I rather dead stick it in at that altitude, every day and twice on sunday.

Edit to add: G5 or beyond anyways, no way I fly an airplane whose fuel tanks act as fragmentation grenades upon impact.....
 
Flying out of KSNA this same question crosses my mind regularly. Would love to fly a twin but it's difficult when fuel is 7 bucks a gallon.

If I had the money, I'd much rather have a DA42 over an SR22 since the fuel burn is comparable and I'll take an extra engine over a chute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I share the concerns. Our runway is just 2,300 ft. long and embedded in an urban environment. That our O-300 powered 172 climbs rather leisurely, particularly on warm summer days, doesn't help either.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable behind a twin than under a chute. Being cheap, I am however neither willing to pay for the thirst and the maintenance of a twin nor the costs for the repacking of the chute.

A plane with a good climb performance and a low Vx, like a Cessna 182, would currently be my choice as our next plane. This would allow me to quickly gain altitude, without covering too much distance, what again increases the chances that I would either still be over the runway or high enough to make it back, in case the engine quits shortly after takeoff.
 
German guy said:
I share the concerns. Our runway is just 2,300 ft. long and embedded in an urban environment. That our O-300 powered 172 climbs rather leisurely, particularly on warm summer days, doesn't help either.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable behind a twin than under a chute. Being cheap, I am however neither willing to pay for the thirst and the maintenance of a twin nor the costs for the repacking of the chute.

A plane with a good climb performance and a low Vx, like a Cessna 182, would currently be my choice as our next plane. This would allow me to quickly gain altitude, without covering too much distance, what again increases the chances that I would either still be over the runway or high enough to make it back, in case the engine quits shortly after takeoff.
Click to expand...

The 182 has a unique option that really improves your capabilities at the bottom of the envelope of short landings and that is the canard from Petersen. It you want altitude quick, then adding the 260hp IO-470 is really worthwhile, plus allows LOP operation.
 
narchee said:
Not true. Here is an example of a low altitude chute pull in Addison (coincidentally) with one fatality and two serious injuries.
Click to expand...

From the Cirrus Flight Operations Manual Section 4 - CAPS Deployment:

Pilots may encounter situations that require an immediate activation of CAPS
such as: an engine failure after takeoff, mid-air collision, or a loss of control in flight.
CAPS must be activated quickly under these circumstances to preserve altitude
and control airspeed within acceptable deployment parameters.

I realize the parachute subject has years of debate and varied opinions surrounding it. But Cirrus does advise using the parachute on takeoff when no other contingency seems viable. There are other safety features in the new Cirrus planes, like an angled firewall for plowing ground on crashes, airbag seatbelts, 28g force seats, and a crash cage design.
 
Last edited:
Without the reinforced fuel cells, id rather cirrus have a guillotine that cuts my head off in a crash. Surviving the crash then burning alive isnt a nice way to go.
 
OkieAviator said:
It's like judging fitness with a bench press. You can fly 500 hours a year and still be a crap pilot.
Click to expand...


there are people that fly 500hrs a year, and then there are people that fly 500 of the same hr a year.
 
Last edited:
mtuomi said:
Without the reinforced fuel cells, id rather cirrus have a guillotine that cuts my head off in a crash. Surviving the crash then burning alive isnt a nice way to go.
Click to expand...

Actually in parachute mode, the crash provides little fire risk, which with the older model SRs should be taken into account in a forced landing. Pull the chute and shut it down master, mags, and all, pretty much eliminates the risk since you also eliminate the ignition source.

I am glad they finally dealt with the tanks though.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Edit to add: G5 or beyond anyways, no way I fly an airplane whose fuel tanks act as fragmentation grenades upon impact.....
Click to expand...

Very good point. When/what model did Cirrus introduce reinforced fuel cells?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top