I’d try pitot heat first
Cirrus perspective gives a loud ding sound and warning when OAT requires pitot heat.
Is that based on the pitot current draw, or the voltage applied to the pitot heater?
The heater can fail during a flight.
There’s no suggestion that the engine stalled – listen to the ATC tape.
The pilot says they have a problem with airspeed indication, that’s quite clear and definitely not a mis-hear or mis-speak of anything to do with the engine.
The controllers says something where he speculates that they got a stall warning after losing airspeed indication and thus pulled the chute. It’s the typical press thing of thinking that a stall is something to do with the engine.
As I said, there may be more to it. But they’re quite calm on the radio, and they don’t mention any problem other than loss of airspeed indication. Yes the terrain is terrible, but it doesn’t seem to me that they were being forced down. No mention of ice at all.
Yes they were not coming down so why now, not before or after? But I take it as no ASI near 0C IMC and terrain and some X reason => chute
X is not necessarily engine but could be anything from autopilot, envelope protection or some other warnings…but I am sure those pilots are still wondering what could have been done better but at the end they have walked out of it
Someone I know got a stuck stall warner doing circuits after his go-around on a PA28, the way how he describe it, I am sure he would have pulled the chute 
I would consider loss of the ASI in a situation where you need maximum climb gradient for terrain reasons to be an immediate emergency, at least in IMC. At Vx you are close to stall speed and a small increase in airspeed could lower the climb gradient noticeably.
At Vy you would have more leeway and could fly pitch and cross-check with the VSI.
Let me speed this up a bit
Meanwhile,
All in all, I think it is a good thing that we (and the pilot) have the luxury of pondering all of the above, predictable as it may be, instead of wondering how the occupant(s) ended up dead in a wreck in the mountains after a crash.
@Cobalt I cannot disagree with anything you have written, however, I do wonder when loss of an ASI became an emergency as some of the posts here seem to suggest. Yes, loss of airspeed can be, blockage of the pitot might be if it is the precursor to airframe icing. However isn’t part of the PPL training, the ability to fly an aircraft with an ASI problem. Attitude, power setting come to mind, know your aircraft, and with a well equipped aircraft like the Cirrus you do have GPS and ground speed indications.
I am not saying that there were not other factors involved here or that the pilot was wrong to pull the chute. If that was the pilot’s decision at the time, in the situation he felt he found himself, then pulling the chute was IMO the right thing to do. Better to consider how else he might have handled the situation once safely on the ground.
However, I do sometimes wonder how much of our early PPL training is forgotten with many hours of flying better equipped more modern aircraft.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I would consider loss of the ASI in a situation where you need maximum climb gradient for terrain reasons to be an immediate emergency, at least in IMC
Absolutely true. Nothing to suggest though that they needed maximum climb gradient, although obviously the terrain is severe there.
Bearing in mind everything Cobalt has said and analysing AA’s suggestion of what might have been the case, I am struggling to get my head around the idea of flying light GA in IMC on a route where you might need the maximum climb gradient the aeroplane is capable of. We fly with margins, do we not?
Graham wrote:
I am struggling to get my head around the idea of flying light GA in IMC on a route where you might need the maximum climb gradient the aeroplane is capable of. We fly with margins, do we not?
I think you are hitting a good nail on that one, it is easy to sort emergencies when you know you are taking risks (and I think those Cirrus pilots were aware of the fact)
Cobalt wrote:
Let me speed this up a bitsomebody will post that the pilot took the unnecessary risk of flying in whatever the conditions were because he had a parachute
somebody will post that there should be a rule against taking that risk, and should have stayed on the ground instead of ending up using the parachute
somebody will post that there already was a rule against taking that risk, and the pilot should have obeyed it instead of ending up using the parachute
somebody will post that the pilot should have been able to handle the ASI failure and should have maintained control instead of using the parachute
somebody will post that the pilot should have been able to recover from a loss of control, or otherwise died like a real man instead of using the parachute.
Meanwhile,this event will be added to the list of “saves” on some Cirrus forum
somebody will point out that this is not a “real save”, because of (insert any of the above)
All in all, I think it is a good thing that we (and the pilot) have the luxury of pondering all of the above, predictable as it may be, instead of wondering how the occupant(s) ended up dead in a wreck in the mountains after a crash.
Excellent, thank you very much Cobalt. Let me add that after a couple of pages, we’ll be left with 3-4 people debating it like their life depended on it, while everyone else have left the room and gone flying instead
