You are correct. Cirrus procedures say to use the CAPs if the engine quits or other emergencies.Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
Very few people take their initial lessons through Private in a Cirrus, though. So they should have received the appropriate training as students. Of course, without reinforcement, a Cirrus owner might be a bit rusty on his forced-landing procedures.....
Ron Wanttaja
Ron First sorry if I miss understood you. My bad.
As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this? Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground. I know this has been hashed out on other forums and maybe even here, but why does Cirrus teach this?
Tony
Yes, because if your airplane is not equipped with a chute that's your best chance for surviving. Fly it as far into the crash as you can, hit the least solid object you can as slowly as you can. Don't panic, stall and spin in from a hundred feet if you can keep your head working well enough to crash less severely.
But if you do have a chute, you have a completely different option available to you that most pilots simply don't have, and thus aren't trained for. That option is to simply not crash with nearly as much energy.
If you're probably going to write off the airframe anyway, why not just pull the handle? I'm as much a tough guy as the next guy, but I sure would. I don't owe that airplane jack, and I have nothing to prove. I figure Plan A is to land on a safe runway, and if for some reason that proves to be impossible Plan B is to just not kill anybody -- by whatever means necessary.
It's tough to argue with results, and Cirrus' training program has gotten good results.
Last edited by DaleB; 09-25-2017 at 07:36 PM.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
The operative words above are "are taught" or more emphatically was taught. It's now many years later and you're fortunate enough to be able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and fly a Cirrus. Damn straight you're going to use it in most cases. It's a big part of the reason you wanted it.
You ask why Cirrus teaches this. Because they created the first GA plane to have an integrated full airframe recovery system and is a huge selling point. When you buy a new Cirrus you must take a formal flight training program(10 hrs I think) which includes a "how to" tutorial on pulling that big red handle above your head.
If you build it, they will come!
As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this? Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground. I know this has been hashed out on other forums and maybe even here, but why does Cirrus teach this?
Cirrus has determined if CAPS offers the best solution to a problem, that's what they recommend, 95% of pilots being above average notwithstanding.
No sweat. Remember, I have a rather strange hobby that involves analyzing statistics of, literally, thousands of aircraft accidents. I have a pretty good knowledge that engine failures don't always go fatal.... :-)
Allow me to turn this around: "Why NOT?"
I have yet to hear any sort of logical explanations as to why aviation would be safer if full-aircraft parachutes were prohibited. The only explanation I ever see is, basically, chest-thumping to the effect of "REAL pilots don't use them!"
Tell me how aviation would be safer if CAPS were banned, or tell me how General Aviation would expand and become more popular if they weren't allowed to include full-aircraft parachutes. Be specific. Show your work.
Remember, there's flying as a Sport...and flying as a transportation system. I'm happy to fly an anachronistic single-seater with minimal electronics and the requirement of mastering some rather esoteric skills. If I make a mistake, or my aircraft glitches, I may die. I accept that because I get extreme pleasure exercising those skills and that aircraft.
Someone who gets into aviation for transportation, though...there's no advantage to them needing complex skills or being capable of exercising 1920s technology. Ideally, they'd enter the designation on a keypad and depend on a self-flying aircraft to get them there and autonomously execute procedures to ensure the safety of the occupants if a hardware problem occurs. That's WAY outside the current technology level, though. For now, we have to settle on a handle that solves most aeronautical problems.
Ron Wanttaja
Imagine if gliders had a chute. As soon as the rope was cut loose the chute would be pulled.
Seems like we are saying here, if your engine quits or goes silent in flight and you do not have a chute or are not flying a cirrus you are dead. But really or in reality once the engine goes silent you have a glider. It may not fly or have the sink rate of a "true" glider but it is a glider none the less.
Maybe those in power to tell others what to do should be saying...All pilots should have so many hours training in a glider for when the engine goes silent you have a glider.
Tony
Last edited by 1600vw; 09-26-2017 at 05:03 AM.
Now it's just getting silly. No one has said anything of the sort. Obviously not all engine out situations will result in a crash and injury or death. If I lose my engine where there's a flat, smooth, safe place to land it's not a big deal. But what happens if that big veggie slicer up front stops spinning while I'm flying over steep terrain covered with trees, with nowhere to land? Too bad, nice to know you. A parachute would sure come in handy right about then, wouldn't you think?
When I'm flying over Nebraska farm fields, I'm not terribly worried about what would happen in the engine quits. Pick a spot, try to stall it about six inches up. But when I was flying over tree-covered hillsides in NC and TN with nowhere to land without wadding up the airplane pretty badly, I worried some.
Your glider, real or hypothetical, intentional or otherwise, regardless of glide ratio, can't safely land everywhere.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
If the purpose of the glider's flight was to carry four people 500 miles, well, yes. It ain't gonna make it. Might as well pull the chute.
No...but if you're not flying a Cirrus, you have a challenging five minutes in front of you. Is that open field smooth, or are there concrete chunks hidden by the grass? Is a car going to come down that "perfect" road you picked? Is the wind stronger than you anticipate, and will make you undershoot?
I understand you've had a number of engine failures, and I honor you for your successes. But were all of them easy? About a third of homebuilt accidents start with an engine failure. Are homebuilt pilots THAT bad? Why can't they do forced landings?
My challenge still stands: Tell us how aviation is safer if the chutes aren't permitted, or how aviation will grow faster if they're banned. Otherwise...can I compliment you on a remarkably resonant chest?
Actually, I don't think that's a bad idea. My own is to require all basic flight training to be performed in Piper J-3s, based at dedicated small grass far outside of urban areas. After a year, the survivors get their Private ticket. :-)
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 09-26-2017 at 08:56 AM.
I would say even if you are flying a Cirrus, the next few minutes are going to be very challenging. With no parachute, you have to pick a spot to land if there is one, or the least bad place to crash. Now you've got to either land, not screw it up, and pray there's nothing you didn't plan for -- or crash as slowly as you can and hope for the best. If you have a chute, you have to figure your chances of landing safely, then decide if your chances will be significantly better if you pull the handle. Me... if I had that option... if a safe landing were not assured, I'd pull the handle and call it a day.
Even "smooth" farm fields aren't a great alternative. They might look great from the air, but things are a little different when you figure you're going to put little bitty wheels into pretty deep furrows of very soft earth, at highway speeds. A friend of mine had an engine failure last winter. A Cassutt, over farm land. Sure, it glides... about as well as a piano, I think. While he survived and is flying again today, the outcome would have been much better and the hospital stay and recovery a lot shorter had he been able to come down under a canopy at less than 70 or 80 MPH.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote