SR20 crash in FL 2 injured, 1 critical

Extensive thread over on COPA.

Apparently an advanced training flight where oil pressure was lost.

Extensive damage, and serious injuries, so lots of speculation about the pull.
 
He pulled it w/ at least 8 seconds to spare. You can see where the line cutters ripped away from the sides. (Assuming whatever model has the 8-10 second delay before those come loose)
 
These guys actually crashed on the property of the Lake Wales Airport,,, And pulled the laundry instead of just landing it ..:dunno::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:..

Judging from the damage and front end completely crushed,, I say they yanked the chute at a VERY low altitude...


Hope the both recover...:yesnod:
 
I saw where a guy posted (on another forum) that he had just returned from currency training on the SR20 and he was surprised, actually amazed, at how much they emphasized pulling the chute. He had the opinion that flying the plane was secondary.
Sad.
 
old cfi said:
I saw where a guy posted (on another forum) that he had just returned from currency training on the SR20 and he was surprised, actually amazed, at how much they emphasized pulling the chute. He had the opinion that flying the plane was secondary.
Sad.
Click to expand...


In his defense, the insurance company tends to over emphasize that they want you to pull the chute. So does Cirrus. They said it again and again.
I expect it is cheaper for the insurance company and every pull of that chute sells more planes.
 
Just what we need -- a reason NOT to stay current or proficient.

Totaling out a plane is a lot cheaper than death benefits. Will be interesting to see what course of action these 2 take. CFI probably has a restrictive clause in his contract.
 
I would also expect that a "failed" chute pull would be bad press however.

Best wishes to all those involved and their families.
 
old cfi said:
I saw where a guy posted (on another forum) that he had just returned from currency training on the SR20 and he was surprised, actually amazed, at how much they emphasized pulling the chute. He had the opinion that flying the plane was secondary.
Sad.
Click to expand...

The problem is way too many people were not pulling the chute and getting killed over it.

Since they've started emphasizing to pull first and ask questions later, the Cirrus fatality rate has plummeted.
 
Hope they recover quickly ,seems the chutes are doing their job.
 
A chute pull should result in a fairly gentle touchdown, about 17 mph vertical. This one was not. We don't know why yet.

The news story linked above correctly mentioned one possibility - deploying the chute at too low an altitude. We will eventually find out what really happened.
 
Bonchie said:
Since they've started emphasizing to pull first and ask questions later...
Click to expand...

I think that kind of misstates the philosophy

The mantra is "Consider CAPS". In short, the chute should be considered early on in an accident chain. In fact, it should be considered as part of every takeoff briefing.

There are countless situations where it is not the best course of action. Problem was, too many pilots simply never even considered it until it was too late - if at all.

...the Cirrus fatality rate has plummeted.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has. Credit Rick Beach and others for the change in training emphasis which is clearly saving lives.
 
Cirrus doesn't say pull in all circumstances. They do say pull immediately between 600 and 2000 ft, below 600 ft land ahead if possible but pull chute if no other alternatives, and above 2000 diagnose and try to solve problem, and if that fails to pull. (For the non G5 versions, it's pull immediately between 500 and 2000, and land straight ahead below 500 - for some reason the chute zone seems to have lost 100 ft on the G5).

So those portraying Cirrus training as pull immediately and all the time are simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Hard to tell but it looks like the chute was either not intentionally activated at all (accidentally activated due to impact forces) or activated so low to the ground that it didn't have time to fully inflate. It looks like the plane had quite a bit of forward momentum at the time of impact, which would not be possible with a fully inflated chute.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
In his defense, the insurance company tends to over emphasize that they want you to pull the chute. So does Cirrus. They said it again and again.
I expect it is cheaper for the insurance company and every pull of that chute sells more planes.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, the instant that the engine quits, the insurance company automatically becomes the owner...and my actions henceforth will be with that in mind...
 
Isn't their some sort of time life on the parachute.
 
FlySince9 said:
As far as I'm concerned, the instant that the engine quits, the insurance company automatically becomes the owner...and my actions henceforth will be with that in mind...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a dangerous mindset.


I've had two full engine failures, no one got hurt, no property damaged and not so much as a scratch on the airframe.

If the airplane isn't hurt, the pax tend to be unhurt as well :yesnod:
 
James331 said:
Sounds like a dangerous mindset.


I've had two full engine failures, no one got hurt, no property damaged and not so much as a scratch on the airframe.

If the airplane isn't hurt, the pax tend to be unhurt as well :yesnod:
Click to expand...

my mindset is that my responsibility is to myself and my passengers. Not the insurance company.... which is what the post I quoted inferred to be the mindset they attempt to instill regarding that equipment.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
In his defense, the insurance company tends to over emphasize that they want you to pull the chute. So does Cirrus. They said it again and again.
I expect it is cheaper for the insurance company and every pull of that chute sells more planes.
Click to expand...

Both by selling replacement planes, and by alowing them to market to future potential customers another life saved by the pull.
 
brien23 said:
Isn't their some sort of time life on the parachute.
Click to expand...

Cant speak to Cirrus BRS but sport parachutes will last a very long time if properly cared for ie, minimize unnecessary UV exposure, don't pack on the grass and dirt etc. When I say a long time I'm talking thousands of jumps and years of use.
 
From the pics of the canopy in front of the plane, and the front of the plane bashed in pretty well, it appears it was on one of the forward swings from the recent post-deployment phase when it contacted the ground. Or - there was significant wind component from the rear causing a serious dragging once it impacted.
 
docmirror said:
From the pics of the canopy in front of the plane, and the front of the plane bashed in pretty well, it appears it was on one of the forward swings from the recent post-deployment phase when it contacted the ground. Or - there was significant wind component from the rear causing a serious dragging once it impacted.
Click to expand...


Someone earlier in this thread said there is a delay when the sling rips the side off the fuselage after the chute blossoms... It is pointed nose down till that event...

My guess is the plane was too low to the ground and hit before the ripping sling stage...:idea:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
 
Depending on the model, there is (as I understand) an 8-10 second delay between deployment and the line cutters being deployed.

Explosive bolts fire after that delay and the side panels of the plane are ripped away. This transitions the plane to a level attitude.

In the photos, you can see the rips in the side panels from the hole where the chute is deployed down to the front of the wings. I believe if the bolts fired on the ground, we would not see those rips.
 
FlySince9 said:
As far as I'm concerned, the instant that the engine quits, the insurance company automatically becomes the owner...and my actions henceforth will be with that in mind...
Click to expand...

Yep. I feel the same. Care for the pilot/passengers, not the plane.

The flight school I went to emphasized that in case of an engine failure, do not damage the plane. Their reasoning was if there is no damage to the plane, the FAA will be more forgiving. :dunno:
 
FlySince9 said:
As far as I'm concerned, the instant that the engine quits, the insurance company automatically becomes the owner...and my actions henceforth will be with that in mind...
Click to expand...
When my engine quit forcing us to land on a highway, where the leading edge of our wing lost an encounter with a road sign, the insurance company paid the 7 grand to fix the wing. The $35k engine replacement was all mine. Perhaps if we had a less graceful landing.:D
 
JOhnH said:
When my engine quit forcing us to land on a highway, where the leading edge of our wing lost an encounter with a road sign, the insurance company paid the 7 grand to fix the wing. The $35k engine replacement was all mine. Perhaps if we had a less graceful landing.:D
Click to expand...

"Live" and learn...:rolleyes:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Depending on the model, there is (as I understand) an 8-10 second delay between deployment and the line cutters being deployed.

Explosive bolts fire after that delay and the side panels of the plane are ripped away. This transitions the plane to a level attitude.

In the photos, you can see the rips in the side panels from the hole where the chute is deployed down to the front of the wings. I believe if the bolts fired on the ground, we would not see those rips.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the side panels rip away as soon as the parachute comes out, but the rear parachute line is kept short to keep the nose from pitching too far up during the initial deployment. After the 8-10 second delay when the forward speed is gone and the aircraft has settled nose down, the pyrotechnic line cutters cut a snub line that releases the rest of the rear parachute line and the aircraft settles at a level attitude.

From the crushed in nose, it appears that the line cutters didn't get a chance to fire, but the ripped away side panels aren't an indicator of that.
 
MassPilot said:
It is my understanding that the side panels rip away as soon as the parachute comes out, but the rear parachute line is kept short to keep the nose from pitching too far up during the initial deployment. After the 8-10 second delay when the forward speed is gone and the aircraft has settled nose down, the pyrotechnic line cutters cut a snub line that releases the rest of the rear parachute line and the aircraft settles at a level attitude.

From the crushed in nose, it appears that the line cutters didn't get a chance to fire, but the ripped away side panels aren't an indicator of that.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense
 
JOhnH said:
When my engine quit forcing us to land on a highway, where the leading edge of our wing lost an encounter with a road sign, the insurance company paid the 7 grand to fix the wing. The $35k engine replacement was all mine. Perhaps if we had a less graceful landing.:D
Click to expand...

What insurance company was it?
(They may not all be the same.)
 
Some of the damage may have been the rescue crew cutting away the fuselage to get to the passengers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The student pilot from China passed away over the weekend. He was 26. CFI is still hospitalized in stable condition. There are over 40 Chinese students currently flying from Aerosim where the flight originated.
 
As far as I know, it isn't even clear yet whether the CAPS was pulled pre-impact or was fired by impact forces (it certainly would have stretched the cable to have the fuselage rip the way it was). The CFI PIC's 911 call mentioned nothing about CAPS (not conclusive I know but he mentioned crashing and never anything about CAPS).

So, I don't know anything more than anyone else but I'd guess this was either a ditching without CAPS, a stall spin without CAPS or a VERY LATE (as in single digit seconds before impact) CAPS pull in either of the two previous scenarios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top