Cirrus CAPS deployed - aircraft had crossed Pacific in Feb14

[bizjets101]

A brand new Cirrus SR-22 just off the assembly line in January, and flew California - Hawaii - South Pacific - Australia in February - was caught on video - with CAPS deployed after the engine failed.

4 persons on board, 1 received minor injury to stiff neck - aircraft destroyed.

Aussie news with Youtube video

[Illya Kuryakin]

Too bad pilots can't actually fly anymore. Not saying there was a choice....don't know the terrain, but?
Illya

[bizjets101]

https://www.google.ca/maps/@-33.7171054 ... a=!3m1!1e3

Came down on Sayers Street, Lawson, NSW (Blue Mountains)

[iflyforpie]

Too bad pilots can't actually fly anymore. Not saying there was a choice....don't know the terrain, but?
Illya

You going to say that every time a military pilot punches out?

[MUSKEG]

If only there were flight controls on armchairs. What a safe place aviation would be.

[Crusty]

Too bad pilots can't actually fly anymore. Not saying there was a choice....don't know the terrain, but?
Illya

But what?

I've never understood all the hostility towards the chute.

The way people talk on this forum, you'd think that several planes were parachuting out of the sky everyday.

I might have missed the number in there but the last number I saw published was 22 deployments as of 2010. In one of those, the pilot had a seizure while starting an instrument approach and woke up 1000 feet below his cleared altitude and descending in a spiral with part of his body feeling weak. Does that make him a bad pilot? I think I would have pulled the chute if I was him. Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place. This one had an engine failure. In the end, four people are alive and well. If he had done a forced approach and gotten himself killed he'd be catching just as much flak from this crowd.

Everyone needs to relax.

[trampbike]

Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place.

Initially it was to satisfy the FAR spin recovery requirements. Since this aircraft was not able to meet the requirements, Cirrus had to offer an alternative solution that was at least just as safe.

[ahramin]

Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place.

Initially it was to satisfy the FAR spin recovery requirements. Since this aircraft was not able to meet the requirements, Cirrus had to offer an alternative solution that was at least just as safe.

Any references on that? The Cirrus isn't much of a radical design.

[photofly]

Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place.

Initially it was to satisfy the FAR spin recovery requirements. Since this aircraft was not able to meet the requirements, Cirrus had to offer an alternative solution that was at least just as safe.

Any references on that? The Cirrus isn't much of a radical design.

I don't think you need a radical design for some spin modes to be unrecoverable.
I'm pretty sure the documented spin recovery technique for the Cirrus as detailed in the POH is to pull the 'chute.

From this AD: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... 020505.pdf

Section 23.221 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 23.221) requires that single-engine,
normal category airplanes demonstrate compliance with either the one-turn spin or the spin-resistant
requirements. The airplane, for spin recovery compliance, must recover from a one-turn spin or a
three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after the controls
have been applied for recovery. The Cirrus SR20/SR22 are not certificated to meet the spin
requirements or spin resistant requirements of 14 CFR 23.221. Instead, Cirrus installed an Airplane
Parachute System (CAPS) that was FAA-approved as part of the SR20/SR22 type design.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Most inadvertent spins in the real world occur at low altitude and are not recoverable in the altitude available using conventional recovery techniques.

If you do get into a low altitude spin you will have grievously mishandled the aircraft and deserve the approbation of other pilots. However the chute will likely save your sorry butt, which is good but much more importantly will save the butts of your passengers

To all those chute haters I have one question. Are you really OK with passengers dying when their life could be saved if the pilot pulled the red handle ?

[frozen solid]

I know the aircraft in the original post was destroyed, and indeed it looks pretty banged-up. But in general, when the 'chute is deployed, is that the end of that airframe, or is it possible to repair the skin where the chute webbing rips out? If you pull the chute are you condemning the plane or is it possible to get lucky and save the plane as well as yourself when you pop the 'chute?

[Crusty]

I did a quick Google search and came up with this:

http://kineticlearning.com/pilots_world ... 06_04.html

I've read several times before that Alan Klapmeier wanted the chute because of the memories of his midair in 1985. I remember reading that he watched the other aircraft plummet all the way down to the ground and he himself barely made it back to the airport.

It seems they simply chose not to test the spin qualities of the Cirrus or at least chose not to demonstrate it for certification. Having the chute enabled them to do that.

[Crusty]

To all those chute haters I have one question. Are you really OK with passengers dying when their life could be saved if the pilot pulled the red handle ?

Exactly!

[GyvAir]

I know the aircraft in the original post was destroyed, and indeed it looks pretty banged-up. But in general, when the 'chute is deployed, is that the end of that airframe, or is it possible to repair the skin where the chute webbing rips out? If you pull the chute are you condemning the plane or is it possible to get lucky and save the plane as well as yourself when you pop the 'chute?

I'm pretty sure that once you pull the chute, unless you happen to land on a huge stack of empty cardboard boxes, the airframe is going to be written off.
As far as repairing the skin where the webbing comes out, they're doing the ten year replacement of the chutes and webbing all the time now which I understand means cutting them out are redoing the composite work over top of the new rigging, so maybe that aspect of it could be repaired, but it's not intended to be.

[GyvAir]

Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place.

Initially it was to satisfy the FAR spin recovery requirements. Since this aircraft was not able to meet the requirements, Cirrus had to offer an alternative solution that was at least just as safe.

Any references on that? The Cirrus isn't much of a radical design.

I read photofly's reply. Here's Cirrus's explanation of their engineering choices regarding spin prevention and recovery:

CAPS™ and Stall/Spin
http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

[photofly]

I think that webpage is deliberately misleading. It says

Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, tested and certified for spins – but mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400), Diamond, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been certified for spins.

It deliberately conflates spin testing and certification. Almost all 4-seat designs are spin tested, and must be recoverable after at least two turns. The Cirrus either isn't tested, or failed. Which do think it is?

[ahramin]

Good point photofly, but I'm thinking not tested rather than failed. They had to test the chute in a spin, and it worked. At that point further spin testing becomes an unnecessary expense.

[North Shore]

^ Isn't that just two more flights, though? One at MTOW, full forward CoG, and the second at full aft CoG?

[Big Pistons Forever]

^ Isn't that just two more flights, though? One at MTOW, full forward CoG, and the second at full aft CoG?

There is much more to it than that as every possible scenario has to be tested multiple times. I believe the testing program to certify the Pa 28 for spins involved more than 200 spins.

A Normal category airplane has to show that it can be recovered after a one turn spin or 3 seconds whichever happens first. After that there is no requirement for the spin to be recoverable. A good example of this is the two seat Grumman AA1 series. It will, barely, meet the one turn criteria but after that the spin rapidly goes flat and recovery is impossible as numerous pilots learned to fatal effect. This one turn restriction does not apply to the CAP's as recovery is possible regardless of how developed the spin is.

So the choice is.

Normal category with no CAP's: Don't immediately recover, you probably die

Normal category with CAP's: Will always recover from a spin

Avoiding the spin is not caps rocket science . So it would seem to me that if you let the aircraft get into slow flight, and did nothing, and then let it stall, and did nothing, and then while it is stalled let it yaw, and did nothing, which allowed the aircraft to enter a spin the likelihood of you now leaping into action by carrying out the correct spin recovery actions; is IMO rather low. So in this case the CAP's is the stupid pilot get out of jail card. I have no problem with that if it means there are less dead pilots and their passengers

IMHO the real issue is not the parachute it is the large number of pilots of the Cirrus and other High Performance SEP's who have failed to attain and maintain the flight skills necessary to operate this class of aircraft.

In the case of the Cirrus, both the factory and the owners group have put together an industry leading training program. Virtually no one who has completed the full initial and recurrent training program has had to use the parachute. The majority of the chute pulls are by pilots who have had little or no training. That is the problem with the Cirrus pilots

Finally everyone looks at the chute pulls. Another metric is fatal accidents where the chute was not used. Depending on how you analyze the data it is likely that at least 100 people would still be alive if the pilot had used the chute in the 58 Cirrus crashes where the chute was not used..............

Also FWIW 10 Cirrus aircraft that deployed the Chute were later repaired and are still flying

[GyvAir]

Also FWIW 10 Cirrus aircraft that deployed the Chute were later repaired and are still flying

I was a little surprised to read that! I'd looked into this several years ago and didn't find any examples of a Cirrus having been repaired after CAPS deployment. What I recall reading, but can't find at the moment, was a statement on the Cirrus website to the effect that the plane wouldn't be economically repairable after using the chute.

[trampbike]

Another had a midair collision - which is exactly what inspired the Cirrus designer to install a chute in the first place.

Initially it was to satisfy the FAR spin recovery requirements. Since this aircraft was not able to meet the requirements, Cirrus had to offer an alternative solution that was at least just as safe.

Any references on that? The Cirrus isn't much of a radical design.

To add to the reference photofly posted, this is where I learned about it:
http://www.richstowell.com/store/books/ ... -awareness

[photofly]

Good point photofly, but I'm thinking not tested rather than failed. They had to test the chute in a spin, and it worked. At that point further spin testing becomes an unnecessary expense.

Part of me says that the marketing value of "can recovery from a one-turn spin without pulling the chute" would make it worth the testing programme expense. But another part of me thinks the official line from Cirrus is "pull the chute - we don't want the bad publicity of you thinking you're good enough to recover from a spin even if our test pilots are, then killing yourself and your passengers when you could have pulled the chute earlier on and lived."

[CpnCrunch]

The crash near Sundre would seem to suggest that the Cirrus isn't all that easy to get out of a spin, at least when loaded up with 3 people:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0w0155.asp

[burhead1]

^ Isn't that just two more flights, though? One at MTOW, full forward CoG, and the second at full aft CoG?

There is much more to it than that as every possible scenario has to be tested multiple times. I believe the testing program to certify the Pa 28 for spins involved more than 200 spins.

Jeez 200 spins how **%*& high were they?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The crash near Sundre would seem to suggest that the Cirrus isn't all that easy to get out of a spin, at least when loaded up with 3 people:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0w0155.asp

An excerpt from the report

Quote
Early recognition of situations justifying the use of CAPS, and subsequent activation, has been very effective in reducing the severity of injuries and damage to aircraft. When C-FGLA entered the initial spin at least 1600 feet agl, there was adequate height for a successful deployment as demonstrated by Cirrus research and past occurrences. In this occurrence, the condition of the T-handle retention bracket, combined with the location and condition of the deployed parachute in the wreckage indicates that the system did not activate until ground impact. It could not be determined why the system was not activated.
Unquote

An early part of report indicated that it appeared that the pilot had initiated a conventional spin recovery, had stopped the rotation, and the aircraft was pitching up when the it
hit the ground.

The bottom line seems pretty clear to me. The pilot had one last chance to save himself and his passengers. His failure to use the CAP's was the final bad decision he made that day......