I am no huge Cirrus fan (nor an opponent) but the chute works. There is no way to know how many of those who survived after a pull would have died but it is well more than 0.
Yes there is a somewhat annoying amount of marketing hype with Cirrus but it is also the most successful light GA manufacturer in recent times.
JasonC wrote:
no way to know how many of those who survived after a pull would have died but it is well more than 0.
Based on what statistic? Again, suppose the number of saves is 10% or 90%? If you are in the 10% would you not want to have the chute on the plane?
What is the magic survival rate? How many chute pulls need to happen before you decide the chute is worth the expense? It is a PURELY person assessment of both risk and requirement.
There are guy flying around with no radio – I find that to be an utterly irresponsible and dangerous situation. The fact that the FAA allows that says to me they have no real interest in safety in the first place.
USFlyer wrote:
Based on what statistic? Again, suppose the number of saves is 10% or 90%? If you are in the 10% would you not want to have the chute on the plane?What is the magic survival rate? How many chute pulls need to happen before you decide the chute is worth the expense? It is a PURELY person assessment of both risk and requirement.
USFlyer you have managed to completely miss the point of my post. Let’s not let religious fervour overcome rational debate. Amazing how even a pro-chute post can upset a zealot….
Any debate on a chute must be about cost/benefit. You can’t frame the debate as “If you are about to die and a chute could save you, you would want one wouldn’t you?”
I have been flying the Cirrus now for 3 years and in total on the Cirrus over 700 hours next to hours/flights on the Piper Archer 3 or Seneca 2. I LOVE the CAPS system as does my wife. She has been following twice a “partner in command” training. With that training she now knows how to activate the Level button on the AP, move back the chair on the pilot seat, talk on the radio, steer the AP in heading mode to a specific location and pull the chute. Now which wife would not love this plane? Here is a blog post from some time ago where my wife writes about the options as a pilots’ wife flying along and her feeling about the CAPS option: http://www.aeroplus.nl/how-to-get-your-wife-to-fly-with-you-part-3
The funny thing about the transition training to the Cirrus was the tendency for us pilots to search for a grass field as soon as the instructor tells you there is a simulated engine failure. You don’t at first consider the chute, but have been trained to look for a place to put down the plane. You have to incorporate the chute option in your drills in order for you to consider it.
The promotion to pull early and often is not coming from Cirrus, but from COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association). They have been promoting this as it does seem to save lives and pilots would generally without the proper training and consideration not thing about pulling enough as not to ruin the aircraft and in the believe that they can still put it down in a field or on a road. However, you just don’t know what is in the field. It could be a water-basin for cows or a small ditch that you just did not see. And that might just kill you. So the advise is to pull.
I do consider the CAPS system a little bit as a second engine. In fact, I often prefer to fly the Cirrus with the CAPS option than to fly the Seneca 2 with the extra engine. I am just not sure that second engine helps me a lot, where it also introduces another complexity. And yes, I would of course consider flying trips with the Cirrus SR22T with FIKI, synthetic vision, CAPS and the Turbo that I would not even consider flying in a Piper Archer 3. It might be a winter day: snowing, freezing level at or close to the ground. I would not depart in the Piper, but it might be a good option in the Cirrus. I love flying at night and do it in the Cirrus, the Seneca 2 as well as the Piper Archer 3. Which aircraft do you think I prefer? True, probably the Seneca 2, but in some cases the Cirrus. The CAPS then is my second engine.
What I miss on the Cirrus (and other aircraft for that matter that I fly) is the pressure cabin and I don’t like the flying on AVGAS. I would prefer the JetA1. So I am working on the transition to the Piper Jetprop DLX. Other than that I cannot imagine a more capable aircraft for trip flying in Europe than the Cirrus.
What are you
Michael wrote:
Michael 03-Jan-16 12:53 #03
Just go to COPA : 59 SavesAs the title suggests, they account for 59 saves to date.
But seriously C210, do you have any doubt that the CAPS does not work ?
It obviously does, although one can always debate
Michael I moved the thread cause it was not in an appropriate topic in that Post and it was in response to people not getting hurt with Chute pulls not about whether I think the chute is a good safety feature. To put things into context I pasted the posts I made on the other Post regarding “practicing partial panel” in the Flying section.
C210_Flyer wrote:
C210_Flyer 02-Jan-16 21:04 #61C210_Flyer wrote:
I missed the New Years fireworks by focusing in on Ski Mountains, airports, and hotels without using a proper scan. Just like in the cockpit. Will have to do better next time.My 2 cts. There are a LOT of nervous pilots out there. Just because they are pilots does not mean they are comfortable in the air. The only way to know this is to having known the pilot and the way he flys.
Personally I think every powered pilot should get at least 10 hrs of glider training. This way when the engine quits they dont freeze in place. We’re not talking about helicopters here guys.
Yesterday I was watching a Youtube video and it was an instructor discussing emergency procedures using an IPad in a Cirrus. He went through a bunch of procedures using the I Pad if VFR to land at an airport. Continuing with his presentation, he said if its IFR and the engine quits just pull the chute. Now logic would dictate situational awareness should be first order of business discussed.
1 What am I flying over? City, Forest, water, mountains,farmland, prairies, nearest airport, road?
2 What is the Altitude and how far can I reasonably glide?
3 Day or night?
4 Bases of overcast?Those are all things you know before the engine stops and you theoretically have certain things in your mind that you will do. For example if over land you wont do a ditching procedure.
The only time I would pull a chute would be the same reason Id jump from the plane with a parachute strapped to my back.
Only when I have no other option as in flying over sharp mountains like certain portion of the Alps. At night over inhospitable terrain which includes water or if there is IMC below 1500’ over inhospitable terrain.I went to a 210 Systems course by CPA. One of the attendees was an Aviatrix. She had an engine failure and put it down on its gear onto a country road flanked by trees either side without any damage to the plane. Respect whether man or women. She was a pilot.
So I think that guy in the video should not leave it that easy, “just pull the chute” because someone will take the easy way out and just remember, “all I have to do is pull the chute”, without thinking of anything else
C210_Flyer 02-Jan-16 23:27 #67
Flyer59 wrote:
Flyer59 02-Jan-16 21:16 #62
Sorry, Gene – but if you look at the statistics, it becomes completely clear: Even over landable terrain the chute pull is the better option, because it is very likely,nobody will get hurt
I cant buy that. Most GA airplanes (singles) have a 62Kt stall speed because the slower the better so an off airport landing especially in a field is almost normal. Afterall most airplanes used airfields as airports 50 yrs ago in the states. Only with the introduction of the tricycle gear was it better to land on pavement. Look at how many grass fields you have in Europe which are used as airports 4-1 maybe 5-1 or more.
If what you say is correct then all gliders should have parachutes and use them when they cant get back to the sailport. I would venture to say most sailplane pilots have at least one off sailport landing. Especially ones in competition.
There is a time and place for everything. So I dont belittle the guys who have chutes Im just not certain every chute pull event was necessary.
Perhaps guys with chutes take chances that they are not up for either by skill or poor judgement knowing in the back of their mind that there is an out with the chute.
Of course there are those who where just plain unlucky and lucky for them they had a chute.
By the way I think the Chute revitalized GA. More people are willing to get into the plane knowing their lives are not dependent on the pilot staying aliv
So no where do I mention that chutes dont save lives. I was told by Alexis that
Flyer59 03-Jan-16 06:13 #68So from what you found out there where 10% serious injuries 11% minor injuries and Im leaving out the fatality because it might have occurred outside the systems safety envelope. So as is pointed out there is a 20% injury rate using the Chute so the statement “almost none of them got hurt” is inaccurate.
It’s a simple statistic, that’s all. No pilot of a Cirrus who pulled the chute within the system’s envelope died, almost none of them got hurt – and some who tried to land on a field die
Michael wrote:
111 fatal Cirrus accidents*
With 216 fatalities and 29 survivors (26 serious injuries, 3 minor injuries, zero uninjured)
It would be interesting to find out why they had 111 fatal accidents? Which seems like a lot considering they have a chute as a backup. According to Alexis there was only 1 fatality with a chute pull.
To get accurate data we would need time periods and total accident rates excluding runway excursions.
With all that said and as I have stated before I think the chute is a good idea for a number of reasons provided it is used for the correct reason. But to state that if your IFR and the engine quits just pull the chute can be described in three words Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest.
C210_Flyer wrote:
To get accurate data we would need time periods and total accident rates excluding runway excursions.
I think these graphs that I “borrowed” from COPA tell a message:
Here goes another Cirrus CAPS thread, we haven’t had one for a while :)
Not sure where there is left to debate here. The parachute clearly saves lives. It is clearly very desirable in a range of scenarios including a midair, engine failure over hostile terrain and so on, with no disadvantages besides a slight loss of payload and of course the cost. Can’t we just leave it at that?
If there is anything left to debate them perhaps it is this. I do feel that the average pilot hugely underestimates the seriousness of an engine failure. Every pilot likes to think that if their engine fails they would calmly glide to a perfectly selected field, as if they were Armstrong in the X15. Even if they are IMC until the last 1000 feet. But the reality is very different. If your engine fails you suddenly have a significant chance of death. That is why the chute is nearly always going to be the better option.
Earlier in the thread we had Flyer59 being vilified for putting his aircraft in extreme danger by pulling the key out 5000ft above a runway. If that scenario is really that dangerous, then most real engine failures are going to be ten times worse.
Every CAPS pull and other Cirrus accident is discussed and analyzed in detail on the COPA forum where the overall consensus is that CAPS simply safes a lot of lives that would otherwise be lost. The fact that you have a chute does not mean you use it, therefore the lost of lives in Cirrus accidents where the CAPS system was not used and therefore also the focus on “Pull early, Pull often”. There seems to also be a correllation between Cirrus pilots that are a member of COPA and that have followed one of the safety programs and a much lower death/accident ratio compared to those Cirrus pilots that do not visit the COPA forum and have not been trained in its safety program. And again … COPA is not Cirrus Corporation. It is a very active forum with loads of Cirrus pilots all seriously involved and aiming to improve safety overall.
Why not pull the chute instead of running a risk of killing yourself being the big shot guy trying to do an emergency landing in a remote field? The odds are simply against you and pulling the chute gives you a lot better opportunity to stay alive and continue to fly.
Once again and I can see the frustration that a lot of people have regarding this topic, The question is not whether having chute is safer than not, for clearly logic would dictate that, yes it is. Ok let me repeat that HAVING A CHUTE CLEARLY IS SAFER. There are all sorts of disclaimers that go with that statement though.
I questioned a statement that said, very few people get hurt with chute pulls. I wanted that statement verified. The answer was that 21% of the chute pulls result in injuries. Reference the above information in the thread. Does that mean that a chute is not safe? NO
Here is a list Im making for the three Ds (Dumb Dumber Dumbest). As I hear more reasons to pull I might add to that list. Hopefully wont have to.
I. If Your IFR and the engine stops just pull the chute
2 Pull early and Pull often
In some peoples eyes a guy that has an engine failure in IMC pulls the chute and breaks out of the overcast at 5000’ over an airport would be considered a horses a*s while in other peoples eyes he did the right thing because it was an emergency and by pulling the chute he survived. Because it could be claimed that between the time the engine stopped in example one and the time he broke out at 5000’ he could have lost control of the airplane. So by minimizing that possibility he saved the day with the chute.
Do you understand now what Im referring to?
JasonC wrote:
You can’t frame the debate as “If you are about to die and a chute could save you, you would want one wouldn’t you?”
Sure you can… The parachute is safety pre-caution. You don’t get to use one if you don’t have one on board already….
