Not true. The lowest successful CAPS pull was 420 ft AGL.
All the other pros and cons have been discussed long enough, but one fact is that CAPS has saved the lives of 120 people by now.
One advantage of CAPS is that if you make low vis takeoff into IMC or fog you have a much higher chance of survival after an engine failure. All you need is 500 ft.
one fact is that CAPS has saved the lives of 120 people by now.
What actually happened is that the total content of the homo sapiens species of the planes on which the chute had been pulled was 120 
I fully accept that social research is plagued with difficulties.
There is a big “Church of Scientology” thing around this. Some years ago when someone here posted a pic of an SR22 with the chute only partly opened, we got demands to remove the photo.
As for the rest, that is consistent with what I posted, more or less.
Exactly. @Steve. Alexis:
Nobody denies there are situations where having a chute can make the difference. This might even include situations where the pilot did not explicitly use the chute as an excuse to get into danger.
But this spin thing is a load of bullshit.
The percentage of actual pilots – private and commercial – who have survived an inadvertent spin is close to zero. The whole claim that a plane should be recoverable from a spin is BS. For about 95% of pilots, getting into a spin is simply the last supper.
Which is why Cirrus has gone through extensive arguing with the FAA that spin recovery is actually a bad idea and that the chute is a much better one.
Which is why Cirrus has extensive transition training to de-train pilots from trying to emergency land (as fought in flight school) into retraining them to pull the chute.
Now your arguing about how wonderfully the Cirrus recovers from a spin is completely detrimental to the reason someone buys a Cirrus: because he CAN pull a chute instead.
Your whole emergency procedure is different, isn’t it ?
It’s good, no question. But please, don’t sell us the Cirrus for it’s spin recovery capability ;)))))
It is a completely different matter that the average, non-aerobatic pilot cannot recover (any) airplane from a spin.
I can, but i learned how to do it and i did it in +10 types of aircraft.
500, or 1000 feet is not enough to recover from a spin. In a Cirrus 2000 would be better.
I did not say that it recovers “beautifully”, it just recovers like any other airplane, if high enough. I’d try it above 5000 ft AGL, below i’d use the chute.
See ? So why tell us a Cirrus is good at it. It is not.
I would love to have a chute in the Beech. And only for one (1) reason:
Travelling with someone who hasn’t learned to fly and you get a heart attack.
Which is about the real and only ‘core’ reason everyone with a family ever bought a Cirrus. There are a lot of other artificial reasons, but that’s the big one.
I cannot comment on the “Church” thing because i am a member and do not want to get into trouble.
Everybody knows about the incident where the chute failed, because it was packed the wrong way. Only time it failed. Why would anybody want to remove that picture?
I for myself have other good reasons: midair, low vis takeoff into clouds, engine failure over a city, mountains, water … and more
AF wrote:
Filthy Rich – Private Jet
Rich – Socata TBM / Pilatus
Wealthy – Cirrus
Higher Middle Class – Beechcraft
Upper Middle Class – Mooney
Middle Class – Cessna
Lower Class – Ultralights and stuff
Broke – Gyrocopters / Gliders
A new 18 meter glider would cost you north of 200 k E at least. And if for whatever reason you can’t deduct VAT be prepared to spend close to 300 kE. Plus there are huge opportunity costs because you are 100% dependent on favourable weather therefore you wait and wait and wait…
I wouldn’t call broke all those gentlemen’s who can afford both the time and money to compete in gliders.
Steve6443 wrote:
My useful load is 386kg, I fly Lean Of Peak with an average TAS of 135knots whilst consuming 9,4GPH.
My wood and rug airplane has 485 kg of useful load. Of course it can’t much speed / fuel consumption ratio of the sleek Cirrus but since it’s O-360 runs on Mogas therefore despite slightly higher fuel consumption cost per NM seems to be at least on the same level.
So how can you “avoid” an engine failure after entering low clouds after takeoff?
My wife (who had a PPL for ten years) did not care one bit which airplane i buy ;-)
