Garuda air have, next to the emergency instructions, a card containing pre-flight prayers for Muslims, Buddhists and Christians (perhaps a few other religions too, though some notably absent).
OK. I am biased as I am flying a Cirrus SR22T and I just returned from a COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association) meeting at Bornholm, Denmark.
However, I love the aircraft and the toolbox it provides. Garmin Perspective glass cockpit, dual alternators (I had an alternator failure with a Piper Arrow III once, not nice), FIKI (flight-into-known-icing approved), ice-lights, basically everything that I would like to get on an aircraft including the 315 HP and ... the CAPS parachute system.
There have been issues reported with the CAPS system, but overall, it saved a lot of lives. Every CAPS event is discussed in detail on the COPA forum, but the overall count is publicly available here: http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSSavesAndFatalAccidents.aspx
I fly IFR single engine at night. In case of an engine failure, I would not know what to do in that kind of situation other than to pull the chute.
I am biased as I am flying a Cirrus SR22T
I fly IFR single engine at night. In case of an engine failure, I would not know what to do in that kind of situation other than to pull the chute.
I don't think you are biased at all. For SE night, pulling the chute is absolutely the best thing.
I rarely fly at night (25hrs night, 1600 day) partly for this reason, though the bigger reason is that most GA airports are shut anyway.
The reason why every Cirrus chute pull generates so much emotional debate is because most of them are not SE engine failures at night, and not even engine failures at all. For SE flight over forests, mountains, night, I'd have a chute right away.
I don't think you are biased at all. For SE night, pulling the chute is absolutely the best thing.
Well, is it? Surely it depends on altitude.
Peter: whatever the reason for the chute pulls, at least it is an option that I have available. Now, I am no expert on what the causes are for emergencies (in the Cirrus). I have only some ideas or wild guesses. The accident ratio on Cirrus aircraft is not lower than that of other aircraft, in spite of the extra safety features on board such as the CAPS system, envelope protection, emergency descent mode (EDM) and so on. I personally think that the risk is mostly with the pilot and his personal risk profile and not linked that directly to the specific aircraft.
I used to fly a lot on a Piper Archer II/III/Arrow Turbo and you know in that aircraft the risks you are willing to take and which risks you don't take. Now I moved up to a more capable aircraft. My personal risk profile stays the same, but I will take more risk in the more capable Cirrus than in the Archer II. All of a sudden, I fly in icing-conditions, more at night, faster and higher. That I believe counts for all of us as we all take a certain amount of risk for granted (otherwise we would not fly) and that certain amount of risk with which we feel comfortable is taken along to other aircraft we fly on and differs one pilot from the other.
Then there is the human factor and experience (e.g. flight experience). We humans make mistakes. If it is not a mechanical failure, than it will be us humans failing. Now, if you can cope with the error and save yourselves by getting out of the trouble or not depends for a large part on your experience level flying in general and also on your experience flying the particular model of aircraft you are having trouble in.
If the experience in type is less than 25 hours, the risk profile is most likely very high. Between 25-100 hrs, it is maybe medium and >100 hrs on type that risk profile is low or lower. The same for things such as your proficiency, your health, the maintenance status of the aircraft, if your flight is in IMC or only VMC, etc.
Apart from the above, I have the impression that there are a number of Cirrus pilots that just get this fast plane, but are not really ready yet to fly it. That is maybe the same problem we had in the past with the Bonanza or doctors aircraft. They can afford it and thus will get it. The Cirrus is a sexy aircraft and might have more appeal to certain pilots than other aircraft. Again, this is a problem but not with the Cirrus but with the pilot flying it.
Well, is it? Surely it depends on altitude.
I wouldn't say so. The minimum altitude for the chute is not very high and one would make sure to always be significantly higher than that when over hostile terrain or at night. The rest would be takeoff and approach where you are more vulnerable. Approach you should do that you are safe without engine and takeoff is a very short period until you are 400 AGL. I would feel safer doing a 0/0 takeoff in a Cirrus than in a DA42 or Meridian.
Apart from the above, I have the impression that there are a number of Cirrus pilots that just get this fast plane, but are not really ready yet to fly it. That is maybe the same problem we had in the past with the Bonanza or doctors aircraft. They can afford it and thus will get it.
I think this is always a risk with more expensive aircraft. They can be selecting of those who can afford them rather than those most able to fly them. I think it behoves anyone flying these very fast high altitude aircraft to treat them with respect and train seriously and regularly in them.
Whether it is Mirage, Cirrus, Bonanza - the airframes are fine, the problems are almost always with the pilots.
I wouldn't say so.
I meant an engine failure at night at FL200 should not necessarily be an automatic chute pull should it? Of course at 1000ft I would pull it if I had one.
