Captain_John

Captain_John

Well Known Member
In light of recent aircraft incedents it seems that these new procedures were deemed necessary enough for Cirrus engineers to make additions to the already comprehensive Cirrus Operator's Manual. These additions are for all models of Cirrus ships.

Engine Failure in flight:
Pull the 'chute

Engine fire:
Pull the 'chute

Wing fire:
Pull the 'chute

Canopy pops open in flight:
Pull the 'chute

Can't see the ground:
Pull the 'chute

Wife is complaining about turbulence:
Pull the 'chute

Going too fast:
Pull the 'chute

Gotta go pee:
Pull the 'chute

Dog is puking in baggage compartment:
Pull the 'chute

Stock market goes down:
Pull the 'chute

Stock market goes UP:
Pull the 'chute

Daughter gets preganant:
Pull the 'chute

...and last but not least,
fuel starvation:
Pull the 'chute

Did I miss anything?

:eek: CJ

PS, I just noticed that this is my 500th useless post!

:D
 
Personally, I'm in favor of the chute idea, but I'm surprised what the CFI & private rated pilot were doing for a practice session in the fatal Cirrus accident a week ago.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20060118X00087&key=1

Apparantly they were practicing the engine out/ return to the runway scenario from low altitudes with a simulated engine loss, and 180+ degree teardrop manuver.

But, as it often happens for real, they spun in just like many others have before.
 
cobra said:
What is a teardrop maneuver?
Click to expand...

You take off (runway 09, for example). Then your engine dies, so to get back to the runway you make a quick turn (to the right, let's say), and then you make a big teardrop shaped turn to the left to get back to the runway for a downwind landing on 27. This typically results in either:

1) an uncontrolled crosswind landing into whatever happens to be under you when you run out of altitude

or more typically

2) a spin into the ground.

Here's the classic case: You start making the turn....remember you're climbing so you don't have much airspeed to begin with....as you turn from upwind to downwind, you have to steepen your turn to maintain the ground track you want (remember doing square patterns when you were training). Now you're slow, low, underpressure, and in a fairly aggresive turn. Then you kick in a little inside rudder because you think that makes the airplane turn. The wings bank some more and you have to cross the controls to keep the wings in a reasonable bank. You also have more drag, are rapidly loosing airspeed, pulling more G's and need more elevator to maintian what you think is the proper rate of decent. This is the recipe for a low altitude spin entry, and is usually unrecoverable. It's also a well known and understood mode for fatal accidents, yet it still happens all the time....even with a CFI in the aircraft.

Occasionally, you have enough altitude to actually make the turn. By far, though, the safest thing to do is try to land as straight ahead as you can...sometimes it's impossible and you have to do this, but by and large there's usually somewhere you can land straight ahead and history has shown that controlled decent into practically any terrain or obstruction is infinitely more survivable than a low altitude spin into the ground.

Incidentally, if you read through the NTSB accident reports, you'll notice a couple of things:

1) The chute does NOTHING for a low atltitude stall/spin accident

2) The chute does NOTHING for another popular method of killing yourself...high speed spiral after loosing orientation in IMC...the chute simply comes apart at high speed. Bummer....THIS one could really save lives and is worth the extra $$$. That said, having a TruTrak installed is probably safer and is certainly cheaper.

3) For some reason that is unclear to me, Cirrus pilots appear to possess remarkably bad judgement (read through all the reports...you'll see a pattern emerge).

4) When used how it was designed to be used, the chute works and has probably saved at least a few lives IN SPITE OF the incredibly bad judgement of some of the pilots.

Incidentally, the fastest Cirrus seats 4, cruises at 185kts and costs over $400,000. It also has no demonstated spin recovery characteristics....no choice but to pull the chute. For the same price, I can build 4 quickbuild RV-7's, cruise at 185kts, seat 8, and even recover from the occasional spin :) You just gotta love homebuilts...
 
I remember reading an article many years ago reporting that cars with airbags were involved in more accidents than those without. This seems like a similar phenomenon.
 
My wife and I call this the "large SUV mentallity". Same people that shouldn't be driving 5-6000lbs. of metal down the freeway also (unfortunately) buy aircraft. These are the people that don't care to learn how to control what they've bought, they just think that because they have it they can do whatever they want and devil take the person that tells them "no". Just because you can afford a $400,000 plane doesn't mean that your a wonderful individual (though many are), it just means that you can afford the price of entry.

On a different note, I've been going to the local EAA chapter for a year and attending airshows and fly-ins since I was a kid, and have noted that MOST people involved in aviation are wonderful folks. This seems to be a hobby/sport/way of life that attracts really decent people. We're so happy to finally be getting involved! BUT, there are always going to be those that don't have the discipline or ability to make good decisions. A lot of these people have money. Putting them together with aviation is a bad mix, but there have always been people of a similar mind around. Witness all the doctors and lawyers killing themselves in Bonanzas years ago. Put those same people from 30 years ago into the modern age and what kind of plane would they buy? Probably a Cirrus or something similar. I think you're seeing the modern day Bonanza here.
 
i've practiced that manuver many times in our Cardinal. It doesn't take much to keep it under control. The main reason I did it is to know how much altitude i'd need to make the runway. Based on my tests, I'd turn at 600', anything lower and I'd land straight ahead. Trick is to NOT load the airplane up, keep best glide throughout the 45? bank turn back to the runway. Less bank equals more drift and time in the turn. As long as load factor doesn't increase, stall speed remans the same, so the 80mph best glide in the Cardinal works out fine.
 
osxuser said:
i've practiced that manuver many times in our Cardinal. It doesn't take much to keep it under control. The main reason I did it is to know how much altitude i'd need to make the runway. Based on my tests, I'd turn at 600', anything lower and I'd land straight ahead. Trick is to NOT load the airplane up, keep best glide throughout the 45? bank turn back to the runway. Less bank equals more drift and time in the turn. As long as load factor doesn't increase, stall speed remans the same, so the 80mph best glide in the Cardinal works out fine.
Click to expand...

I agree. The required altitude is a good thing to know, and many have practiced this manuver. But from sufficient altitude, I hope, in case a spin does develope. And in the case of a Cirrus, with it's particular spin characteristics, enough altitude to pull the chute!
 
No stall, no spin.

An aircraft's spin characteristics should have nothing to do with the teardrop maneuever. Everyone should know how to execute a turn back to the runway just departed, including the minimum altitude for a safe turn back and how to execute the turn without stalling the aircraft.

No stall, no spin.

Dave Cole
RV-7 wings
 
bearair said:
My wife and I call this the "large SUV mentallity". Same people that shouldn't be driving 5-6000lbs. of metal down the freeway also (unfortunately) buy aircraft. These are the people that don't care to learn how to control what they've bought, they just think that because they have it they can do whatever they want and devil take the person that tells them "no". Just because you can afford a $400,000 plane doesn't mean that your a wonderful individual (though many are), it just means that you can afford the price of entry.

On a different note, I've been going to the local EAA chapter for a year and attending airshows and fly-ins since I was a kid, and have noted that MOST people involved in aviation are wonderful folks. This seems to be a hobby/sport/way of life that attracts really decent people. We're so happy to finally be getting involved! BUT, there are always going to be those that don't have the discipline or ability to make good decisions. A lot of these people have money. Putting them together with aviation is a bad mix, but there have always been people of a similar mind around. Witness all the doctors and lawyers killing themselves in Bonanzas years ago. Put those same people from 30 years ago into the modern age and what kind of plane would they buy? Probably a Cirrus or something similar. I think you're seeing the modern day Bonanza here.
Click to expand...

Bear,

My thoughts exactly!

Very well stated!

:) CJ
 
More stats

Whiskey Charlie said:
According to the NTSB ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp)
there were 35 RV accidents last year and 17 Cirrus accidents.

4467 RVs flying

2200 Cirrus flying

Just about equal accident rates.

Both are very safe planes.
Click to expand...
I agree. I wonder if a typical Cirrus flies more than a typical RV? It would be interesting to see total hours and total takeoff/landings per year.
 
I have no doubt that the Cirrus in itself is a 'safer' airplane than the RV series. For one it has to use certified components for it's systems (The auto fuel pumps in some experiementals really scare me!). But as mentioned, most people who can afford to fly Cirrus' probably aren't professional pilots or aviation enthusiests. That can lead to the high accident rate. Most Cirrus crashes I read about are results of pilot stupidity, most RV crashes I hear about are related to systems malfuctions. Thats something to chew on.
 
Parachutes are not a subtitution for sound judgement.

Whiskey Charlie said:
According to the NTSB ( http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp)
there were 35 RV accidents last year and 17 Cirrus accidents.
4467 RVs flying
2200 Cirrus flying
Just about equal accident rates.
Both are very safe planes.
Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
Click to expand...

Very true. Before I made the final decision to by an RV4 I looked through the accident synopses to see what kind of accidents were happeneing (i.e. pilot error vs. mechanical and the kinds of pilot error).

Pilot Error and Insurance: It is very frustrating seeing our insurance premiums being driven by people that I like to think of as "not me". I think it would be safe to say that there are alot of people that would like the insurance companies to be able to discern "us" from "them".

Certified aircraft vs. Experimental/Amateur: Having experienced certification programs seeing many of the regulations for design, safety analysis, crashworthiness, etc. thinking that it was all just unnecessary and unreasonable government overregulation then experiencing completion of the same programs convinced that nothing forced by the FAA was a bad idea, I can say with confidence that safety and value in a $349,750 SR22 (I got this from thier web site) is worth every penny. Granted I still chose to own an RV at about 10% the cost of ownership - really apples to oranges. It would be interesting to see what two RV7's would cost to build if you included a parachute, EFIS PFD and MFD, a coupled two axis autopilot, dual bus electrical system, dual gps/nav/com and other misc. IFR equipement, TAWS, constant speed prop, fuel injected engine, finished leather seats and complete interior, airbag seatbelts, etc.
- The RV is more "fun" to fly.
- I'd rather be in a Cirrus than an RV if my engine decided to quit.
- The RV if equipped can may a pretty capable traveling airplane.
- I'd rather sit in a Cirrus than an RV for a 10 hour cross country trip.
- I'd buy a Cirrus if I could afford it, so long as I could have my RV4 too:).
- The RV's aren't any more certified for spins than a Cirrus.

According to the accident statistics, both are very safe planes if flown with sound judgement, adequate training, and proficiency.
 
Last edited:
You bring up a good point about spins. There is nothing saying that you couldn't get out of a spin in a Cirrus with enough altitude, just that it didn't meet the FAA's criteria right away, so the proceedure became "pull the chute"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.