rickair7777

The ballistic parachutes used on airplanes self-deploy using a rocket. They will work at a much a lower altitude than say a sky-diver's chute.

block30

Just to reiterate, my original intention was not to barbeque the pilot from the article. There were a few things that made me rub my chin and go, "Hmmmmm." I'm more curious as to the broader BRS pilot training and mentality.

I imagine we have all read a few articles on the Cirrus in particular, and what level of safety they are really achieving. I have found that very interesting, and the authors usually have some statistics, but I am curious about the perspectives of those who are actually flying them-or are closely connected to those who are.

JamesNoBrakes

My take on Cirrus safety is that it's a high-performance wing. Many pilots flying the airplane do not have experience or the physical ability to fly it safely until later on in their piloting experiences. This creates some huge problems. Getting slow or increasing the angle of attack too much can cause unrecoverable spin situations. Even just getting slow without stalling can cause excessive rates of descent that can kill on a deadstick landing. Going fast because you shouldn't shock-cool the engine and the fact that it just doesn't like to slow down gets you into those panic "oh no!" situations. Even an experienced turbine pilot can get into trouble, if passing of this kind of airplane as "harmless as a 150 and not as complex as what I fly!". Sure, not as complex and doesn't require two pilots, but disregard some fundamental aspects of it and you are in just as bad of a spot as others.

I see this as a general trend with high performance singles. Nothing inherently bad or new, except slicker planes that go fast even with the gear down!, but a general disregard for the piloting skills that are necessary to fly them.

That said, nothing I mentioned above is intended to "blame" anyone, but I do feel that with any real problem, pulling the chute is almost always going to be a better option than dead-sticking it in, even if you do pull it off somehow. It's just not worth the risk. If it was a very slow and docile aircraft, then maybe, but it's composite, not the most crash-worthy, aircraft are notoriously un-crash-worthy to start with, and so on...

Besides, this is what insurance is for. If something really did fail or someone else was really at fault (improper maintenance that wasn't the pilot's fault, defect or flaw, etc), the insurance company will go after them and you'll get your money. Otherwise, you might as well not insure it...

block30

On the topic of insurance, does anyone know if retro fitting a BRS chute to your aircraft (C-172 etc.) reduce insurance premiums?

SR22

Can't speak for everyone, but my training was to pull it as the last, best option. Not exactly last resort, but definitely not pull first, ask questions later (e.g., engine failure over the mountains at night, structural failure or other loss of control, pilot incapacitation, etc.). Situations where coming down with a forward airspeed equal to the local wind speed seemed preferable to the alternative.

I always felt quite safe flying that plane. I enjoyed the performance and handling. Never felt like loss of control was an issue, even at low speeds. A solid, stable platform, with a bonus that most planes don't have, just in case.

Regarding a few unknowns I saw mentioned in the thread... IIRC Vs0 is about 65-70 KIAS, Vg is 88 KIAS. Descent under canopy is about 1100 fpm depending on density altitude, and feels like a fall from about 10 feet high. Minimum suggested altitude for deployment is 1000 AGL, but deployment has been accomplished in less than 400 ft. The landing gear is designed to absorb the shock and give way upon impact. The seats have a special honeycomb material in them to further absorb impact shock and prevent back injuries. Oh, and there are/were shops performing composite repairs.

Dejavu

Looks like he glided to a very empty field . Lol

bliddel

I wish my friend Brian P Quinn had had a parachute on November 6. The PT-6 in his Cessna 208 seized, spewing oil over his windshield. Despite this, he put his aircraft on the ground just fine, but landed long, and hit a tree that he surely couldn't see.

Would he have used a chute, had it been available? I don't know, but I do know had he used a chute, he'd probably be alive today.

If I was single-engine out in zero visibility, I think I’d pull the handle.

Phantom Flyer

I'll add my two cents to this discussion.

I have flown both the SR-20 and SR-22 in a Part 135 charter operation. I ended up with a total of about 900 hours in Cirrus aircraft. I loved flying the aircraft and if it wasn't for the price tag, I'd own one by now.

One thing to keep in mind, once the decision is made to pull the handle and deploy the parachute, the pilots become passengers and are just along for the ride. Every situation is different but my thoughts are it's better to dead stick one to a field or road if at all possible. The aircraft handles beautifully at low speeds and one should be able to walk away from a dead stick landing. As for impact forces, we were told in training that the impact for a parachute landing is equivalent to jumping off an 8 ft. ladder.

I can't attest to emergencies in the aircraft because I never had one. Great IFR aircraft and it handled well in even a moderate crosswind.

G'Day Mates

Dejavu

Yeah for sure . Sorry for the loss of your friend .

JamesNoBrakes

I know of more cirrus aircraft that spun into the ground than "handled beautifully at slow speed" and came in for a successful emergency landing following a loss of power or getting too slow. This isn't a cub with a little bit of fuel and a dead stick landing should only be attempted in some rare cases IMO when you have the option for a guaranteed "walk-away". Too many idealistic things we teach and practice with emergency landings that don't always happen in real life.

Call me scared or whatever, but I don't see as many successful off airport landings of aircraft like the cirrus. Not that it can't be done, but I'd take a 95% chance of walking away as opposed to an 80% chance of safely sticking the landing and waking away with no more injury comparatively.