Cirrus training

[coolpilot]

Hey fellow CFI's, just wondering if anybody out there has any time training somebody in a Cirrus or other parachute equipped aircraft. Are we entering a new age in training where guys are no longer taught to fly the aircraft to a safe, power off landing if there is a problem? What are owners thinking about with these planes? Just curious if they think that a parachute equiped aircraft is fail safe or what.

 

[ackattacker]

I tought in a Cirrus for many years, although I got out just when they were starting their UND "Cirrus Approved" instructor thing. The general consensus was that a power off landing was absolutely preferrable to pulling the chute, unless you are over extremely inhospitable or unknowable terrain (IMC, etc).

 

[LR25]

I say bolt another engine to it so it can be a well rounded unsafe airplane for every rich novice to own.

This is not a slam to the guys killed in the Cirrus in NYC.

What happened to flying a 172 for a while so you can make mistakes and learn from them.

 

[Lazy8]

I say bolt another engine to it so it can be a well rounded unsafe airplane for every rich novice to own.

This is not a slam to the guys killed in the Cirrus in NYC.

What happened to flying a 172 for a while so you can make mistakes and learn from them.

The parachutes increase sales due to "The Wife Factor". The husband wants an airplane and says, "Oh but don't worry honey! It's got a parachute!" So she lets him buy his pretty airplane.

But you know folks this is just history repeating itself... First it was Bonanzas, then Mooneys, and now the hot rich-guy killer is Cirrus... Only they're usually surviving due to the parachute.

My big problem with the parachute system is that is gives these folks a false sense of security. They fly into terrain and/or conditions that they normally would never fly through. "Oh well, if anything goes wrong I got the chute." Bad philosophy.

I have a feeling the new Cessna single-engine line, currently in development, will all be parachute equipped too.

 

[Princedietrich]

The only thing that chute is good for, and frankly the reason that Cirrus put it there in the first place, is as a last resort way to get to the ground in relatively few pieces due to flight control failure, structural failure, or some other really catastrophic oops. In other words, the plane CAN'T be deadsticked because it's just that badly broken.

Now I'm no Cirrus expert but I imagine this is the kind of thinking the Cirrus designers were going for. The problem arises when people start to think of that chute as a crutch or as an "easy button" to get them out of any situation.

 

[coolpilot]

The only thing that chute is good for, and frankly the reason that Cirrus put it there in the first place, is as a last resort way to get to the ground in relatively few pieces due to flight control failure, structural failure, or some other really catastrophic oops. In other words, the plane CAN'T be deadsticked because it's just that badly broken.

Now I'm no Cirrus expert but I imagine this is the kind of thinking the Cirrus designers were going for. The problem arises when people start to think of that chute as a crutch or as an "easy button" to get them out of any situation.

That's kind of the way it seems to be happening..."oops, I'm lost, pull the cord!" That's why I was interesred to know. Seems to be a few Cirrus events lately that might not have been if they had not pulled the cord and landed in someone's back yard. Not saying that this was the case in NYC.

 

[woutlaw]

I tought in a Cirrus for many years, although I got out just when they were starting their UND "Cirrus Approved" instructor thing. The general consensus was that a power off landing was absolutely preferrable to pulling the chute, unless you are over extremely inhospitable or unknowable terrain (IMC, etc).

I think this is changing, albeit only very recently. Hopefully a CSIP can chime in.

When I checked out in our SR-20 there were two basic scenarios for a chute pull: Structural or flight control failure (ie, from a mid-air or something breaking on the airplane) and, possibly, loss of control (a spin, disorientation in IMC, etc...)

My, and my instructor's, thoughts at the time were exactly as ackattacker said: That it was better to try an off-airport landing if you lost the engine than it was to pull the chute.

I was just down at a SimTrain facility in Atlanta to help evaluate their Cirrus simulator and one of the instructors there mentioned the recommendation was that pulling the chute was preferred to an off-airport landing. The thinking being it is better to hit more or less straight down at 30 knots than to hit moving forward at 60 or 70. (Significantly less energy involved.)

My takeaway from our conversation was that if something bad happens to the airplane (engine failure, it starts flying weird, you get covered in ice, etc...), pull the chute while you still have time and let the insurance company deal with it. That's a big leap from my initial training in the thing.

How much of that was driven by lawyers and how much by engineering I don't know, but this guy was very, very sharp. Ex-marine fighter pilot, corporate jock, etc... so if he thought it was BS I think he would have said so.

We didn't go through a full recurrent training program so we didn't get into the subject in depth. I'll probably head up to Duluth to go through the CSIP thing in a couple of months so it'll be interesting to get the 'official' word on it.

We practiced some chute pulls in the course of checking out the sim and it was surprising how difficult it was to make yourself pull the handle, even in the sim. The basic idea goes against all of my previous training, which is to never, ever, stop flying the airplane.

The most interesting thing about the chute pull was that not much happens for about three seconds. You pull the handle and sit there wondering if the thing worked. Then the chute inflates and you get knocked around a bit then it's all nice and calm. It's only a couple of seconds but it seems like a long, long time.

Apparently a couple of folks who had pulled the chute in the real airplane did it later in the sim and said it was almost exactly the same.

 

[LR25]

Woutlaw hit it on the head. Im no pych expert on human behavior, but I would think the same way, no pilot is going to admit that its time to pull the chute, until the situation has developed way beyond the chutes capabilities.

Money and low experience isnt a new concept. Bonanzas, Barons etc. But I still havnt figured out this whole low time and fast airplane thing, what kind of premium are these guys paying a month so thay can have the harley of the FBO.

The reason I am interested in this BS, is that Genreal Aviation doesnt need any extra help in getting a black eye. Just in the last cxouple of days, people are astonished that "small" airplanes are even allowed to fly any where near NYC.

With the general publics ignorance, we as GA pilots are going to suffer more in the future if a$$clowns keep showing there a$$ by crashing airplanes they shouldnt be anywhere near.

 

[VW Pilot]

With the general publics ignorance, we as GA pilots are going to suffer more in the future if a$$clowns keep showing there a$$ by crashing airplanes they shouldnt be anywhere near.

So technically which ones are ok for them to crash??? Just Joking!!

 

[Princedietrich]

So technically which ones are ok for them to crash??? Just Joking!!

Powered parachutes. Something goes wrong, and you've already bailed out without leaving your seat.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was just down at a SimTrain facility in Atlanta to help evaluate their Cirrus simulator and one of the instructors there mentioned the recommendation was that pulling the chute was preferred to an off-airport landing. The thinking being it is better to hit more or less straight down at 30 knots than to hit moving forward at 60 or 70. (Significantly less energy involved.)

I'm not so sure about the logic of that...yes, there's less energy involved, but in an off-airport landing the energy can be dissippated over more distance. 60 or 70 knots over 50 yards seems to be far fewer g's than hitting the ground at 30 and stopping RIGHT NOW under the parachute.

My takeaway from our conversation was that if something bad happens to the airplane (engine failure, it starts flying weird, you get covered in ice, etc...), pull the chute while you still have time and let the insurance company deal with it. That's a big leap from my initial training in the thing.

I can see it for the "starts flying wierd", or "covered in ice" scenarios...if you have really serious doubts about the aerodynamic capabilities (or structural, for that matter) of the airplane, the chute would definitely be a good option.

Fly safe!

David

 

[woutlaw]

I'm not so sure about the logic of that...yes, there's less energy involved, but in an off-airport landing the energy can be dissippated over more distance. 60 or 70 knots over 50 yards seems to be far fewer g's than hitting the ground at 30 and stopping RIGHT NOW under the parachute.

I can see it for the "starts flying wierd", or "covered in ice" scenarios...if you have really serious doubts about the aerodynamic capabilities (or structural, for that matter) of the airplane, the chute would definitely be a good option.

Fly safe!

David

Good point on dissipating the energy over a greater distance. I'm a pilot, not an engineer. <grin>

I guess what the guy was talking about was that the airplane is designed to safely dissipate the loads when landing (crashing?) under the chute.

To follow up, I was talking with a CSIP pal of mine yesterday while doing some approaches in an SR-22 and his recommndation was to pull the chute in an engine-out scenario instead of attempting an off-airport landing.

Nosing over, not making the field, hitting wires, etc... were some of the concerns. We fly in Minnesota, which is pretty darn flat and open, and his plan of action is to pull the chute if the engine fails. Said he'd rather pull the chute while he had the chance than to be upside down and on fire in a field wishing he'd pulled the handle.

Fair enough I guess.

There also is apparently some consensus among the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association folk that pulling the chute even at low-altitudes (ie, an engine failure at 300 feet on takeoff) is the way to go.

The thinking being that even a partially deployed chute is going to slow you down. It's an interesting thought.

I'm still mulling that one over because of the pitch up/pitch down moment when the chute deploys. I'd be worried about hitting in a bad attitude (nose down in particular) while the airplane was still stabilizing under the chute.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, pulling the chute IS a very personal decision, and needs to be made based on a lot of factors, including not only the pilots skills, but also what he's comfortable with...I've found that if you're not comfortable doing something, it can become unsafe in a hurry.

Never having flown a Cirrus, I can't speak for its engine-out landing characteristics. I guess I've just made enough off-airport landings that I'm more comfortable with the thought than lots of people.

Fly safe!

David

 

[CL600Pilot]

Nosing over, not making the field, hitting wires, etc... were some of the concerns.

Legitimate concerns I guess but in which scenario would you have more control of where the airplane ends up? I don't know anything about parachutes and the ability to 'steer'(for lack of better term) them but it seems to me that if the structure and flight controls are intact and you can control the aircraft you'd actually have a greater chance of hitting wires, or other things you don't want to, under the chute.

Interesting discussion.

 

[Huggyu2]

For those that have gone through the Cirrus training, was it ever discussed whether it would be effective, should you be too low to deploy the chute normally, to deploy it in the flare to that it ends up acting like a drag chute? Will that work in creating a very, very short landing roll?