I think the toing-and-froing in the Cirrus chute debate is, to a degree, a result of two things.
1) As AeroPlus and other Cirrus pilots say, the a/c simply isn't made for rough strips or outlandings in a field. KWIF has made an interesting comparison in an earlier post here, and to my mind this sums it up quite neatly (sorry, don't know how to link to other posts here). It's horses for courses, really, and what is a non-event in a Cub with Tundra tires will prob 99 kill you in a Cirrus. It would appear, that this isn't quite appreciated by many who fly more traditional a/c.
2) Having read this debate for years now over on the wrinkled plum, I sometimes get the feeling that those most against the chute pull tend to be from the UK. While there is a certain Luddite tendency on this island, methinks there may also be something else at work: the almost unlimited availability of flat fields with pretty hard soil here. This is really rather unique to the UK and does not apply in many other parts of the world. A lot of my flying (both as pilot and as pax in my job) is done over terrain where a forced landing would most likely ruin my day. In the a/c I fly, I don't have the luxury of a chute, but if I had, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if need be.
Just to be clear - I've never flown a Cirrus, although will do (with instructor) next time I'm back in L.A.
don't know how to link to other posts here
In this case you could at least link to the thread and just say "see post #12" or whatever.
While there is a certain Luddite tendency on this island
If you screw up then you should die, while saluting the Queen.
I have flown in an SR20 and SR22 a few times. It flies just fine.
My view is that a significant factor in all this is the Cirrus marketing in the USA, which has dragged out a lot of "non traditional GA customers" who, to varying degrees, buy into the adverts saying that it's like a car, which all experienced pilots know it never can be, for a hundred reasons.
And the bottom line is that if engine failures were statistically significant in IFR-level SE GA (i.e. planes whose Vs is always 59kt) the whole scene would change dramatically. If your Vs is say 30kt (the majority of taildraggers perhaps?) then you can pop it down in any decent Tesco car park, outside opening hours...
I recall reading an account from a "microlight" pilot who said he gets an engine failure every 100hrs. If that was the case for all of us, most of us would be dead or crippled, and the rest would be brilliant at deadstick landings, and our insurance would cost 10x as much.
Out of curiosity, what were you flying at the time?]
My C 150 twice, once ice in the fuel, before alcohol was permitted to deice (I had that rule changed shortly afterward), the other when mice build an insulation nest in the hot air hose, so the selection of carb heat filled the venturi with gobs of fuel soaked insulation. A C 182 with ice crystals in the fuel quit over downtown Toronto, and I glided into the Toronto Island Airport (which you gotta get right with lake on both ends of the runway!), and a C 206 on an engine break in flight, where oil suddenly covered the windshield. From the 13,000 feet I had, I glided 28 miles back to the airport of departure. My foolishness, I should never have been that far away.
I don't readily accept that a Cirrus in not good for forced landings. Now I have never flown one, but I know that it has to meet the same maximum stall speed design requirements as any other certified light aircraft, and a demonstration of power off landings is required for certification. I agree that a PA-18 on tundra tires will be superior at forced landings, but the Cirrus will still do it. I continue to believe that with the 'chute as an option, it begins to seem to be the primary option, and pilots with this mindset talk themselves into using the 'chute first, and dismissing a well executed forced landing as an option.
My modest understanding of the Cirrus 'chute system is that its use results in some, and often considerable damage to the aircraft, and risk to people and property on the ground, A flight planned to minimize risk in the case of an engine failure, and a properly executed forced landing can result in no damage to anything.
I'm not sating 'chutes are all bad, but I think that they are becoming a crutch to replace forced landing judgement and skill for some pilots.
Pilot DAR wrote:
"I think that pulling the 'chute for a very low threshold "emergency" is verging on irresponsible to those on the ground, when you cause your whole plane to descent into someone's garden tea party with zero ability to mitigate the affect"
If I were attending that garden tea party I would prefer, for sure, to see an airplane slowly descending under an orange big canopy, giving me time and opportunity to run away and save my soul, than seeing an uncontrolled airplane coming directly to me at a high speed.
As the aircraft owner, I don't mind if the insurance company has to pay me a new toy. And as the pilot, I don't feel the need to demonstrate that I'm capable of landing an aircraft at 60kts in the middle of the country.
Therefore I only can say: "pull early, pull often!"
As the aircraft owner, I don't mind if the insurance company has to pay me a new toy
You might mind if it was actually you who did it, however...
After what I think was the UK's first chute pull, the UK insurers amended insurance policies to increase the deductibles of the policy. The deductible went up from £3500 to £15000. That was for each and every claim and for a total loss. This deductible could be reduced to £1000 by paying £3000/year extra.
I read the big American forums and the often expressed sentiment there is that the moment anything goes wrong, your plane is owned by the insurance company. That view, echoed often in the UK, is obviously not the case and it is especially not the case in the UK where the insurer will not pay for betterment (will they really pay for betterment in the USA?) so e.g. if your engine is at 1900hrs and it got shagged in the chute letdown (which it definitely will; there is no way to avoid a shock load inspection unless you had a 2 blade prop which you managed to stop horizontally pre-impact) they are not going to give you a new one.
Obviously it's better to walk away alive etc but the only people who can really take that view on insurance in the longer term are renters who can (and frequently do) walk away from some amazing damage.
And if you insure for an "agreed value" (not sure if that's possible in the USA) the insurer has an incentive to repair the plane no matter how long it takes and there isn't anything you can do about it. So you will end up with all the avionics having had the full ~20G and probably a lot more since they are not mounted in shock-absorbing seats, and you won't be able to do anything about that, either.
My Cirrus has a stall speed in landing configuration of 61 knots. Short field landing speed in landing configuration is 77-80 knots. Now imagine driving your nice and fancy BMW or Porsche through the farm field (with some holes and yes ... a hidden water basin of concrete and ... a small ditch) at a speed of about 140 km/hr. Oops. I just hit the watere basin. :-(
I don't have all the wisdom on this issue. All I know is that I am being told and trained on with COPA (Cirrus Owers and Pilots Association).
The pilots on the Cirrusaircraft.com forum are all just as eager and serious about their flying (those on the forum that is) than here at PPL/IR. Their collective 'wisdom' is that it is better to pull the chute. That is what they train and teach. And when they do, they first come with loads of information, background stuff and statistics on the previous accidents that at least give me the impression that they gave this good thought.
The problem is actually that during transition training to the Cirrus, they pull the power lever down at e.g. 1500 feet. What do you do? You start looking for a field where you could put down the plane. That is what you were taught during flight training and you just don't consider the CAPS pull. They have to change your habit and drill you on it to consider the chute as well.
My Cirrus has a stall speed in landing configuration of 61 knots. Short field landing speed in landing configuration is 77-80 knots.
Sorry, but please don't confuse landing speed with approach speed. If the stall speed is 61 knots, then the landing speed is 61 knots or ever so slightly above. What separates the is called the flare.
I know that it has to meet the same maximum stall speed design requirements as any other certified light aircraft, and a demonstration of power off landings is required for certification.
At the same time, a Cessna 150 stalls at 42 knots, which is around 1/2 the energy/mass of a Cirrus touching down at 61 knots and which will allow a significant additional amount of 'thinking time' on the way down. Whilst not wishing to downplay your achievement, in my book it's still comparing apples to oranges.
Those accident rates posted by AeroPlus - have there actually been 130 Cirrus hull losses? That seems extraordinarily high.
How does that compare with other 'similar' 4-seater single-engine a/c?
I would be suprised if the number was out of line, since Cirrus were outselling all other light GA manufacturers put together for years.
