Unfolding Story: Cirrus Parachute Again Saves the Day

Is Ed perhaps trying to say that technology shouldn't be a crutch or a substitute for skill and training?
 
EdFred said:
We disagree, and probably never will agree.

Why do I need to learn how to read a sectional or low enroute? I have GPS.
Why do I need to learn how to calculate winds? I have ForeFlight.
Why do I need to learn how to hold heading? I have an autopilot.
Why do I need to do unusual attitude recoveries? I have a chute.

Training gets replaced with technology, and makes one a worse pilot. I will never be convinced otherwise. And it's easy to tell when you ask someone how to XYZ, the glazed look comes over their face, and it's "Uh, well, I (insert training replacement technology here.)"

Even above the POH doesn't even bother to say recover - it's just pull the chute. Sorry, that makes for some ****ty piloting.
Click to expand...
technology is dumbing down every segment of society. When the government mandates backup cameras in cars because some soccer mom cannot ensure her little baby isn't playing behind the car, we'really screwed. People don't know how to handle keyless cars, Antioch brakes, or idiot lights on the dash. And let us not forget the auto on headlamps (or lack of).
First time I heard the excuse the computer could calculate the weight and balance for them I knew pilots were doomed. Tech is good, don't get me wrong but if you don't know how you got the results, you are as much a passenger as if you were in a Google car.
Acaps may save my life but I hope it isn't my first reaction.
 
What calculation is going to save you from a midair collision, or make you so how have better landing options on hostile terrain?

We are not talking a technology here to make things easier or convenient, we are talking about one to make things survivable. If the good old days of smart pilots means decreased odds of survival, give me dumbed down every time please.

I really don't understand how a BRS dumbs down a pilot. Does an ejection seat make for worse fighter pilots too? Do parachutes make worse acro pilots? Or do they just give additional options?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Quick poll: How many people her have accidentally spun a plane? How about accidentally stalled a plane?
Click to expand...


Both in a fashion.

Have had a poorly rigged 172 "go over" into an "incipient" spin that was stopped but would have progressed into a full one in another 1/4 rotation without proper control inputs.

Have had gusts increase the sink rate and slam the stall horn on solid in the STOL 182 when actually attempting very slow landings and trying to "average out" gusts. Since its STOL it never really completely stalls, power off, but it'll sink at an incredible rate with the stall fences making noise and then drop the nose all on its own.

Judicious application of power for a go-around or maybe salvaging it is imperative right NOW in that scenario.

EdFred said:
I'm saying you're a **** pilot if you're getting an unexpected legit terrain warning.
Click to expand...


C'mon Ed. Pro *crews* have had CFIT accidents and near-CFIT scares and it's a bit of a stretch to claim they're all "****" pilots. They made big mistakes on that day.

Eastern 401 as an old example, they got distracted by bad indicators mainly from two systems (gear and autopilot) and allowing too many people to attempt to work the gear problem they thought they had, and didn't make sure someone was still flying the aircraft. So they ended up allowing the aircraft to essentially fly itself straight into the pitch black Florida Everglades.

You can say they were all "****" pilots but it's not really a fair assertion. Just distracted and not managing resources correctly one day.

Personally I don't care about parachute or none. It's a "use it if you have it and need it", type of thing to me. Nothing really harder than that.
 
OK, I deleted my comment...
 
Last edited:
Guys!

A big mea culpa here.

Wrong chute pull referenced here - my comments above are for the 12/29 one just posted about. I just got confused.

I will remove the posts above and post them to the proper thread.

Sorry!
 
I didn't know about the Cirrus fuel imbalance issue until now. They won't fly with a fifteen gallon imbalance? Uncontrollable?

That's nuts and sounds like it would be a hell of a liability issue for any manufacturer.
 
Both recent chute pull planes have IO 550s, which I think is the same engine you have in current Bo's. The one in this thread had an aftermarket supercharger that runs off the accessory drive - not a turbo. The pilot didn't specify what "fuel mismanagement" occured on takeoff. The guy in the other chute pull thread simply ran a tank dry. So, neither accident points to engine mechanical.

I fly a Cirrus and do my recurrent with Alex Wolf out of BDR. Attitudes towards the chute amuse me, especially coming from people with zero Cirrus experience. But, your attitudes are understandable given your ignorance of the safety efforts within Cirrus and, especially within our type club, COPA.

As one of the volunteers who read every NTSB docket on Cirrus fatals, we saw a pattern emerge. Many loss of control accidents occuring on takeoff, departure, and outside the FAF appeared to involve autopilot usage errors and gotchas. The response was to create a command and control course to teach other Cirrus pilots how to avoid these LOC accidents.

The community has also actively endorsed scenario-based parachute pull discussions. It's been said that the decision to pull is made on the ground. Check out the COPA Safety youtube channel if interested. Ine of the members of the Cirrus caterpillar club is a current air force reserve fighter pilot who suffered an engine failure on departure.

Fly safe!

Updated to add YouTube link.

http://youtu.be/YgOKRe7Bb2M

This interview provides an excellent discussion from a former flight instructor and current F15 pilot about the thought process you must go through on the ground before any flight. His thoughtful explanation of his pre-planning for a Cirrus engine-out is worth a listen.
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
I didn't know about the Cirrus fuel imbalance issue until now. They won't fly with a fifteen gallon imbalance? Uncontrollable?

That's nuts and sounds like it would be a hell of a liability issue for any manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Not quite. But 38 gallons in the left tank and zero in the right will hurt you if you don't remember to switch tanks. His problem (other thread) was he had the AP on and it masked the growing fuel imbalance. Eventually, he ran out of gas in the selected tank, and that caused the engine to quit. So, it's neither a mechanical failure or a design flaw. Just simple pilot inattentiin/error apparently.
 
Mark57 said:
Not quite. But 38 gallons in the left tank and zero in the right will hurt you if you don't remember to switch tanks. His problem (other thread) was he had the AP on and it masked the growing fuel imbalance. Eventually, he ran out of gas in the selected tank, and that caused the engine to quit. So, it's neither a mechanical failure or a design flaw. Just simple pilot inattentiin/error apparently.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

I guess it's too simple to have a 'both' selector like mine you never have to touch. :dunno:
 
txflyer said:
Thanks.

I guess it's too simple to have a 'both' selector like mine you never have to touch. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Not sure how it works on the Cirrus but on other low wings the issue is that the fuel needs to be sucked from the tanks vs gravity fed as in most high wings. If on tank runs dry in a sucking "both" config it still fails (try sucking on two straws... One in water and one not and you'll see).
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Not sure how it works on the Cirrus but on other low wings the issue is that the fuel needs to be sucked from the tanks vs gravity fed as in most high wings. If on tank runs dry in a sucking "both" config it still fails (try sucking on two straws... One in water and one not and you'll see).
Click to expand...


thanks,

you know .. in this day and age of microprocessor's, it seems like it would not be that difficult to come up with a gadget that 'looks' at the fuel guages and tells a servo to suck gas appropriately. :dunno:
 
txflyer said:
thanks,

you know .. in this day and age of microprocessor's, it seems like it would not be that difficult to come up with a gadget that 'looks' at the fuel guages and tells a servo to suck gas appropriately. :dunno:
Click to expand...


Or it wouldn't be too hard to rube goldberg it so gravity feeds both Tanks into a lower center tank and fuel is pumped up from there.
 
txflyer said:
I didn't know about the Cirrus fuel imbalance issue until now. They won't fly with a fifteen gallon imbalance? Uncontrollable?

That's nuts and sounds like it would be a hell of a liability issue for any manufacturer.
Click to expand...

It's an operating limitation: no more than 10 gal difference.

The working assumption is that it's an ultraconservative response to some possible limitation of the autopilot.
 
txflyer said:
thanks,

you know .. in this day and age of microprocessor's, it seems like it would not be that difficult to come up with a gadget that 'looks' at the fuel guages and tells a servo to suck gas appropriately. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Right!

With all the tech in the cirrus seems like a big oops in the design, especially seeing how many aircraft are lost due to stupid fuel mistakes.

The PC12 (low wing) has such a system, both tanks are always on, no effort required, nor do you even turn a tank on or off, it simply kicks the fuel pump on the heavy tank on thus pulling fuel from only that tank till it's balanced.

For all the synthetic vision, air bags, parachutes and whatnot, why hasn't cirrus addressed this simple, but MAJOR issue.
 
James331 said:
Right!

With all the tech in the cirrus seems like a big oops in the design, especially seeing how many aircraft are lost due to stupid fuel mistakes.

The PC12 (low wing) has such a system, both tanks are always on, no effort required, nor do you even turn a tank on or off, it simply kicks the fuel pump on the heavy tank on thus pulling fuel from only that tank till it's balanced.

For all the synthetic vision, air bags, parachutes and whatnot, why hasn't cirrus addressed this simple, but MAJOR issue.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a regulatory issue? For example, 23.951 specifies:

(b) Each fuel system must be arranged so that—

(1) No fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time; or

(2) There are means to prevent introducing air into the system.​
 
Mark57 said:
Isn't it a regulatory issue? For example, 23.951 specifies:

(b) Each fuel system must be arranged so that—

(1) No fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time; or

(2) There are means to prevent introducing air into the system.​
Click to expand...

Here's how the system is arranged

image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg



I just think making a near idiot proof fuel system would yield more "saves" than a bunch of nylon and a rocket, well based on how many (maybe most?) GA planes go down, especially ones flown by richer weekend warrior types.
 
Last edited:
Major issue? No. Plenty of airplanes have L/R/OFF selectors.

Use the brain, and fuel starvation doesn't result.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Major issue? No. Plenty of airplanes have L/R/OFF selectors.

Use the brain, and fuel starvation doesn't result.
Click to expand...

minor nit pick: pilot-induced fuel starvation won't result - could still have a mechanical problem leading to fuel starvation (rare, but a blockage could happen in flight, but very rare)
 
hankrausch said:
I just read this thread & have to ask the OP--"unfolding story, parachute saves the day!" Was that intentional? I hope so it is funny!
Click to expand...
Finally someone caught the pun! Actually I had no idea but you guys can just think I was really brilliant.
 
Bob Noel said:
minor nit pick: pilot-induced fuel starvation won't result - could still have a mechanical problem leading to fuel starvation (rare, but a blockage could happen in flight, but very rare)
Click to expand...

Correction noted:) Has any cirrus had a fuel selector malfunction that lead to an accident? Not arguing with you, just wondering. I'm sure it's pretty rare as you say.

A few years ago one of the FBO's rental Archers went down in a field. The story goes that the pilot was an employee of the FBO and was carrying 3 pax on a sightseeing flight and when she switched tanks, the fuel selector fell off, or wouldn't switch tanks, or something(not sure of the exact details there). In any case, ran out of fuel and landed in a field. They fixed it and flew it out of there. No idea if it was poor maintenance, or a fluke. Maybe 15 miles from the airport, and a sightseeing flight which I can't imagine would have been much more than an hour... not sure how much fuel was onboard at takeoff, but it couldn't have been much.

I prefer the left/right thing as I didn't always have a gravity-feed Cessna draw fuel evenly from both tanks with the selector on both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top