SR 22 down

scottd said:
The pilot activated CAPS and landed flat. He walked away from the airplane and in fact, when back to the airplane to retrieve his phone and activate the ELT. At some later time, the airplane was evidently flipped and dragged by the wind. In some of the pics you can see the obvious score marks on the ground where this occurred.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. I didn't know the pilot had already made a statement...

I did see the score marks and the lack of debris that was the main gear in the pic and am assuming it is still laying on the ground in the direction the pic is being taken from.
 
scottd said:
Yep, at the bottom of post #17 in this thread I had mentioned this. He gave a very short account of what happened in the Cirrus owners forum. The pilot did a very good job implementing what he had been taught. A visit to the hospital after the accident showed that he has a small fracture of the 4th vertebrae, with no disc involvement. So he's taking it easy for a while and enjoying his Thanksgiving holiday.
Click to expand...

Pulling the chute is so great! Happy broke back thanksgiving

A perfect chute deployment results in injuries. A lot of people have sustained spinal injuries as a result of cirrus chute deployments.

From the damage to the plane and occupants, I look at a chute deployment as a survivable crash. The plane might fly again and its going to hurt

A forced landing could go many ways. You could hit trees and die. You could land in a rough field and rip the gear off and sustain injuries. You could set down in a nice field like that and maybe break the wheel pants. You could quite literally grease it on the highway and roll into a gas station.
 
Last edited:
Can you define "a lot" and cite your source of this information. The numbers from COPA are far lower than you are making it sound.

John


dell30rb said:
A perfect chute deployment results in injuries. A lot of people have sustained spinal injuries as a result of cirrus chute deployments.
Click to expand...
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Can you define "a lot" and cite your source of this information. The numbers from COPA are far lower than you are making it sound.

John
Click to expand...

Just seems like i've read several stories of spinal injuries occurring with caps landings.

There are a few horror stories too.. one plane got tangled in power lines, one guy landed in the hudson bay and was sinking in freezing water with a broken back.

In this case the plane landed flat, with no wind, and the guy broke his back. Assuming he is healthy, this is a pretty good indicator of how harsh the impact of a chute landing is.

PS I do have a high opinion of cirrus and the chute. I think the default response to an engine failure or any other serious emergency should be a chute pull. No arguments there. Its just the compressed spine and the image of this broken up plane in the middle of a large and smooth field...
 
Last edited:
scottd said:
Yes, the impact is quite severe (like dropping the airplane in a free-fall from 10 to 12 feet). But the point is that this is going to be survivable nearly 100 percent of the time with a good chance to "walk away" with little or no injuries. I think if you look at traditional off-field landings, you will not see this kind of record.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that.
 
Mafoo said:
Pipistrel is doing something really smart on there new Panthera aircraft. They are adding a chute, that if deployed, doesn't total the aircraft.
Click to expand...

I see nothing on their website that claims that. Here is what it says-

Panthera features a full-airframe parachute rescue system, which was specially developed to allow deployment at both low and high speeds, as well as at low altitudes.

The cabin has been engineered as a safety cell/roll bar with built-in
energy absorption zones, providing superior safety to the occupants in the event of an accident. The seats and safety belts are engineered to meet the latest +26G CS/FAR-23 certification standards.
Click to expand...

Sounds to be pretty much the same system Cirrus uses. As others have pointed out, many Cirrus have been returned to service after a 'chute deployment. It is not a gauranteed airframe death sentence.

One has to realize that at this point in development, the Panthera is just a prototype and Pipistrel is in that mode of promising everything to everyone to generate interest and to book pre production sales. After the rigors of certification testing is when the story typically changes.
 
Dav8or said:
One has to realize that at this point in development, the Panthera is just a prototype and Pipistrel is in that mode of promising everything to everyone to generate interest and to book pre production sales. After the rigors of certification testing is when the story typically changes.
Click to expand...

True, however they are a pretty impressive company.

As for the chute not causing the aircraft to be totaled, I heard it 7 minutes into this video. Good to know the Cirrus can also be rebuilt many of the times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4PbMnzWYk0

Cool looking plane.
 
Mafoo said:
Cool looking plane.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It is exactly the kind of new plane many of us would like for the future. I hope all goes well for them. Too bad very few of us will be able to afford such a new plane, but that's how it goes.

I'm not a fan of the T tail. Only thing I don't like about the plane so far.
 
Dav8or said:
Indeed. It is exactly the kind of new plane many of us would like for the future. I hope all goes well for them. Too bad very few of us will be able to afford such a new plane, but that's how it goes.

I'm not a fan of the T tail. Only thing I don't like about the plane so far.
Click to expand...

A Mooney (In flight) looks much better than a Cirrus. They compare favorably with the SR20 (Actually, the Mooney is better in every respect besides perhaps payload)

Same HP, but 20 knots faster.
 
if speed is your only comparison. Size, looks, and load capability go to Cirrus
 
jmp470 said:
if speed is your only comparison. Size, looks, and load capability go to Cirrus
Click to expand...

Sorry, a Mooney in flight looks way better than a Cirrus. Not only speed, but range too. Plus they don't turn the pilot into flambé if a wing gets busted in an impact.
 
DavidWhite said:
Sorry, a Mooney in flight looks way better than a Cirrus. Not only speed, but range too. Plus they don't turn the pilot into flambé if a wing gets busted in an impact.
Click to expand...

Mooney's happen to have a slightly higher rate of fatal accidents than Cirri according to the following Aviation Consumer article that happens to compare the Cirrus against several equivalents, including Mooney M20s:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/621587.aspx

So while about 16% of the Cirrus SR22 accidents had post-crash fires to the Mooney's 11% to 12% (about 45% more), the Mooney had more fatal accidents per flight hour than the Cirrus SR22 (about 27% more.) So according to their methodology, you are simply more likely to die, per hour of flight, in a Mooney, irrespective of the probability of a post-crash fire.

I've posted these stats before and you continue to repeat the same irrelevancy. I presume it is due to an enhanced fear of fire?
 
An article about Cirrus safety by Cirrus I'm sure is objective an doesn't hold the slightest bit of bias :rolleyes:

I went through the NTSB reports sometime last year and found that the Cirri combined have a fatal accident rate of about 30%, whereas V tail bonanzas were almost 40%, straight tails were 30%, and Mooneys were 15%.

I would go back and find the post but I am astoundingly lazy.

And yes, I am also thoroughly terrified of fire. After I had my little escapade in the 210 I've had a reccurring nightmare about being on fire - I suppose it has become a phobia of mine.
 
Ok I resend that remark, it was 25% for Mooney and not 15%.

I'm not sure if I did 5 years or 10 years but these were the numbers I had written down

66
181a36

70
178cirrus

31
72v35


90
366mooney

The number on the top represents fatal and the one on the bottom represents total.
 
DavidWhite said:
An article about Cirrus safety by Cirrus I'm sure is objective an doesn't hold the slightest bit of bias :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The article was written by Aviation Consumer magazine, not Cirrus. Someone in the Cirrus pilot's group appears to have gotten permission to post a reprint on the Cirrus pilot website. The article does not praise Cirrus at all for the accident rate of their airplanes - and the statistics they computed for the Mooney were an incidental byproduct of their investigations.

The safety of your Mooney and the probability of it being involved in an accident are largely in your control. It is obviously a more demanding airplane to fly than a Cessna 172, which has a very good safety record.
 
funkster9 said:
re·scind   [ri-sind] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to abrogate; annul; revoke; repeal.
2.
to invalidate (an act, measure, etc.) by a later action or a higher authority.
Click to expand...


I used it in the correct sense, I just didn't spell it right.

I'm a pilot not an English teacher!
 
Sorry about that Dave. I was dragged to the mall and was sitting, aggravated, on a crowded bench while the family shopped. I took it out on you. Apologies :)
 
DavidWhite said:
A Mooney (In flight) looks much better than a Cirrus. They compare favorably with the SR20 (Actually, the Mooney is better in every respect besides perhaps payload)

Same HP, but 20 knots faster.
Click to expand...

Umm, yes, this is all true. However, I was talking about the Pipistrel Panthera. I have no need for a Cirrus, although I do like the parachute and the concept of the side stick. Can't say if I really like the side stick or not because I've never flown with one, but in theory, it's an awesome idea. The Panthera, if it really does make it to production, is the only new plane I would trade my Mooney for if I were magically loaded with money.
 
DavidWhite said:
The general consensus of the Daves seems to be that Mooney is awesome.
Click to expand...

I fixed your icon for you, David.... sorry you've been having problems with your new plane. Fuel leaks were an issue on one of our two club Mooneys... hope you get it fixed soon.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • DavidMooneyRevised.png
    DavidMooneyRevised.png
    20.4 KB · Views: 119
scottd said:
There have been a few. But most resulted in no injuries. I wouldn't use a few injuries to discount a majority of those that have walked away with NO injuries.



It was the Hudson River, not Hudson Bay. He blacked out in flight. Later it was discovered he had a brain tumor.



Yes, the impact is quite severe (like dropping the airplane in a free-fall from 10 to 12 feet). But the point is that this is going to be survivable nearly 100 percent of the time with a good chance to "walk away" with little or no injuries. I think if you look at traditional off-field landings, you will not see this kind of record.
Click to expand...


I have always wander if the best thing to do in case of a chute deployment is to put the seat rest all the way back to avoid back injury or even brace? I have never seen any instructions on how to better position yourself for impact. I guess I would put the seat rest back.
 
funkster9 said:
I love the SR22 and the safety the chute offers, but Im not pulling the ripchord with that kind of real estate below me. Of course assuming the oil covered windscreen doesnt apply and all control surfaces functional.

87031B77-637B-42F5-8AD3-959538C43083-17146-000019D9B384D694.jpg
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing frm the prior pics.
 
Landing off runway on anything less than level will probably cartwheel the plane. so given the chance i would try to position myself above a survivable site, deploy within design parameters, and repent of all my sins while I float down to the ground. If I survive then good, if not 40 virgins will be waiting for me.:goofy::goofy::goofy::goofy:
 
scottd said:
Here's a pic of the airplane after the accident provided by the pilot. You can see it came down flat. After the accident, the pilot was trying to get first responders to find him while talking to them on his cell phone (he also had a Garmin 496 on battery power so he was able to give them GPS coordinates). But they had difficulty finding him. So, he inflated the chute with the hope it would be easier to spot. Eventually the Sheriff saw it in the distance.

Cirrus-AZ.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow - that sure puts a different complexion on things. Bummer about the plane flipping later. Wonder what the insurance company will say?
 
My guess would be "at least, nobody died" In that context, planes are cheap.

Jim Logajan said:
Wow - that sure puts a different complexion on things. Bummer about the plane flipping later. Wonder what the insurance company will say?
Click to expand...
 
scottd said:
Here's a pic of the airplane after the accident provided by the pilot. You can see it came down flat. After the accident, the pilot was trying to get first responders to find him while talking to them on his cell phone (he also had a Garmin 496 on battery power so he was able to give them GPS coordinates). But they had difficulty finding him. So, he inflated the chute with the hope it would be easier to spot. Eventually the Sheriff saw it in the distance.

Cirrus-AZ.jpg
Click to expand...

I can now see why the gear folded with a sideload.. Beautiful plane... For a catastrophic oil failure I would have thought there would be more oil stains around the cowling... Nice to see the Cirrus and the chute worked as advertised..:yes:
 
MachFly said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember the single Cirrus forced landing that had no injuries. Usually the engine compartment gets bend down and the firewall gets pushed into the cockpit breaking pilot's legs.
In Cirrus' case if your landing on anything but a runway I think you should pull the chute.
Click to expand...


There have been several including one in the Keys.
 
N801BH said:
I can now see why the gear folded with a sideload.. Beautiful plane... For a catastrophic oil failure I would have thought there would be more oil stains around the cowling... Nice to see the Cirrus and the chute worked as advertised..:yes:
Click to expand...

There are a lot of oil stains on the other side of the plane.
 
LDJones said:
Survey sample is far too small to derive any concrete conclusions. You know what you'd do. I know what I'd do.
Click to expand...

The pilot reported that the area had lots of rocks and small stumps. I doubt they would be an issue for a Husky on tundra tires but a Cirrus is a different matter. In fact the accident pilot said he thought a belly landing would have been fine if he had been in a retract.
 
Never knew parachutes were available on planes. I think that's great and I applaud this guy living another day!
 
MachFly said:
Were all of them G3 models by any chance?
Click to expand...

No. If you are thinking of the angled firewall, that was put in with the 2004 G2. The main issue I have seen with off airport landings is flipping. You have a relatively high stall, 3400 max gross, and small wheels that don't retract.
 
MachFly said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember the single Cirrus forced landing that had no injuries. Usually the engine compartment gets bend down and the firewall gets pushed into the cockpit breaking pilot's legs.
In Cirrus' case if your landing on anything but a runway I think you should pull the chute.
Click to expand...

You don't rmrmber one because you haven't been in one. When nothing goes bad, you don't hear about it.
 
David will soon discover, that 4 ladies > one airplane.....in many many ways....
 
bbchien said:
David will soon discover, that 4 ladies > one airplane.....in many many ways....
Click to expand...

Airplanes ***** an order of magnitude less than one woman, and several less than four. They're also less expensive.

Lets see. Yes, Mooneys are awesome, hope to get one some day.

A four page thread because a guy crashed a plane and walked away from it. Must've been a Cirrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top