CAPS - Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (REDESIGNED)

[Swass]

I prefer the G1000 over the Avidyne, but after now flying both, I'd take the Cirrus, as it's far more comfortable. With an extra $400 thousand or so, I would probably prefer a Columbia with the new Garmin 1000 option over the Cirrus.

$400K over the Cirrus? Lancair's don't cost that much, maybe the turbine comes close, but not thier certified planes. I would much rather have a Lancair than a Cirrus, badazz toys there.

 

[mtrv]

How about you keep your parachute and only use it when your shot out of the sky! . Big difference between GA and Military flying.

The only time I can think of when I would NEED a chute would be in the event of a mid-air collision. All other times just FLY THE AIRPLANE.

What's worse, an F-18 Hornet crashing into a residential area, as the pilot hopefully punches out at the last second, or a Cirrus floating to earth after a total engine failure.

Perhaps the F-18 needs a BRS ??? Might take three or four!

A BRS on a Cirrus, is just an extra option, when suffering total engine failure over a highly populated metro area, or a rugged mountainous wilderness.

If an airport is not within gliding distance, then you can acess the risk factor of a controlled descent into crowded streets, powerlines, golf courses, and freeways before pulling the chute as the last, or perhaps better option.

 

[NoPax]

An instructor buddy of mine was killed bailing out of an airplane, after an unrecoverable maneuver...student survived...they bailed out at 2500-2000 AGL, hard deck was 3000'.

I agree that maybe an airframe parachute could have saved them, but I don't like that people are pulling the handle when they have control of the airplane, or perhaps if they had proper training, they could maintain control.

Read up on the development of Cirrus sometime...I have...it's why there is a parachute for spin recovery - it couldn't pass the single-engine spin tests...

I quote:


Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. Remember that spin testing in certification is done with a special tail parachute for breaking the spin that can then be cut away inflight. NASA puts this best:

"Because unrecoverable spins may be encountered during initial aircraft stall/spin flight tests, spin test aircraft are commonly equipped with emergency spin-recovery parachute systems, which can be deployed to terminate the spinning motion and reduce the aircraft angle of attack to below stall conditions. The parachute is then jettisoned by the pilot and conventional flight resumed."
— http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)​

You can see videos of such parachutes in action at http://www.airbornesystems-na.com/spinstall.html.
You're not going to be flying with a certification-testing parachute, however. A Cirrus pilot's only option is to pull the big main CAPS parachute and hope that he or she has not built up too much speed for the cords. A couple of new owners in Parish, NY managed to stall and spin their plane all the way down from 5000' AGL on April 24, 2002. Multi-engine planes don't have to be spin certified, and a lot of them are probably even nastier in a stall than the Cirrus, but very seldom are they sold to beginner pilots. A lot of single-engine four-seaters, notably Pipers and the Diamond Star, will just mush downward if you cut the power and hold the stick or yoke all the way back. Nearly all single-engine four-seaters will come out of a spin by themselves if you stop holding pro-spin rudder and let go of the yoke. The Cirrus demands more respect and more training. Ideally you should do your stall practice with the plane loaded up with passengers and baggage. Many four-seaters, including the Cirrus, take on a different personality when light on fuel and only the two front seats are occupied versus when fully loaded with a more aft center of gravity

 

[ePilot22]

If an airport is not within gliding distance, then you can acess the risk factor of a controlled descent into crowded streets, powerlines, golf courses, and freeways before pulling the chute as the last, or perhaps better option.

Ok, let me see if I understand...

Option 1.) Bringing an aircraft (dead stick) down in a controlled glide.

Option 2.) Deploying a parachute because of an engine failure and letting it drift down.

It seems to me that Option 2 is left to the mercy of the wind, hence NO CONTROL as to where the aircraft will come down.

A mid-air or structural failure where the descent would be UNCONTROLLED from the begining of the emergency is when the parachute would be wanted/needed!!!

Here's the thing...

I'm not arguing that the parachute is a bad thing, what I'm saying is that people will use it or relay on it INSTEAD of their training, they might fly into situations with a false sense of security or even into situations they would have avoided if they didn't have that parachute.

Either way, I'm not a fan of the 22 (and I have flown one).




eP.

 

[FlyingSkip]

When I prepare for a flight in the SR22, and especially when I brief passengers, the CAPS is always an important part of the process.

First, in the event that I as the PIC am incapacitated, I want to ensure that my passengers would understand how the system works and that they have an alternative to screaming in fear as the plane flies into the ground uncontrolled. Too many times pilots play the game of "what if" in terms of engines or systems going out, but don't plan for what happens if THEY are out of commission---the CAPS is a real benefit for pax that have no pilot experience.

Second, I think about what the situations would be where I would/would not use the CAPS. It always makes me smile to see low-time guys talk about what they'll do when they have to "dead stick" one in---as someone who has had to do that several times in civilian/military aircraft, it ain't fun, and it ain't as easy as saying you'll do it! The option, repeat OPTION that the CAPS provides in certain situations, whether it's over mountainous terrain, in heavily-populated metro areas, or in my personal case when I'm being vectored 7-10 miles over open ocean to an ILS final gives you the ability to MAKE A CHOICE! That's what the manufacturers wanted to give the pilots of their airplanes, if you believe Alan K. who has spoken to pilots with my company...and I do.

I'll start the flame bait here by saying that anyone, repeat ANYONE who speaks ill of any safety equipment on any aircraft is an idiot. Period. Whether it's ejection seats on military jets, parachutes on Citabrias teaching aero basics or CAPS on Cirrus, ANYTHING that can possibly be used to save human lives is a good thing! Granted, perhaps some pilots need further training in terms of good decision-making skills about CAPS, but c'mon...there's a lot more that need help determining when to go/no go, get gas, flight plan, etc. But to say that the CAPS isn't a good idea, or that it's actually making situations worse is ridiculous. That reminds me of the morons that say that seatbelts will "trap" people in burning cars, so we shouldn't have those either! Everybody has their own opinion, but people that feel this way---you're wrong. My two cents...

 

[avbug]

I'll start the flame bait here by saying that anyone, repeat ANYONE who speaks ill of any safety equipment on any aircraft is an idiot. Period.

How about improper use of safety equipment?

The skydiver that allows a reserve parachute loose in a jump aircraft. The Cirrus pilot that uses the parachute instead of flying the airplane...or allows himself to make decisions based on having that magic little panic button available. The martin baker rider who gives his ride "back to the taxpayer" at the wrong time.

All safety devices, all with legitimate uses, all with potential abuse. And big consequences.

What's worse, an F-18 Hornet crashing into a residential area, as the pilot hopefully punches out at the last second, or a Cirrus floating to earth after a total engine failure.

Perhaps the F-18 needs a BRS ??? Might take three or four!

A F-18 driver who gets out is almost certainly doing so because every available option is no longer available. Nobody gets out of an aircraft riding a seat without having a VERY good reason. Strap a rocket to your office chair and take a ride through the roof and see how you like it.

The F-18 spends very little time over a residential area, and what little it does is minimized by speed and the type of operation. The Cirrus, however, spends a lot more of it's time over residential areas. The issue of residential areas is something you introduced, and really has no part in the discussion; I address it here because your comparison between the F-18 and the Cirrus is laughable at best, and utterly ridiculous. An extremely poor effort.

The Cirrus pilot who deploys his CAPS system has typically done so in panic mode, while flying in conditions in which he or she ought not. He or she does so knowing that statistically, a very high fatality rate has followed (by percentage). He or she does so generally after entering flight conditions outside his or her limits, and that of the aircraft...such as the recent deployment in Alabama in severe ice. The same may be said of poor preflights resulting in control surface failures, and other problems in flight.

The idea behind an ejection seat is to preserve the pilot/crew, not the aircraft. The aircraft is beyond salvage, and most are far too heavy, too hot, and too dangerous to be putting under parachute. When an ejection seat is used, generally the aircraft is no longer in the salvagable category. It's going in the recycle bin. The Cirrus, however, in all but two cases so far, has been in a flyable condition, and a landable condition. It may have been put in conditions where a safe landing wasn't practical, but that's a pilot error issue...the pilot should never have been there in the first place (eg, over the mountains in a thunderstorm at night). The idea behind the parachute on the cirrus is also to preserve the pilot and passengers, not the aircraft, and use of the CAPS system does significant damage to the aircraft...when it works. When it doesn't work, it still does significant damage, and the crash does more.

It always makes me smile to see low-time guys talk about what they'll do when they have to "dead stick" one in---as someone who has had to do that several times in civilian/military aircraft, it ain't fun, and it ain't as easy as saying you'll do it!

Uh...yes it is. It always makes me smile when pilots such as yourself say things such as you do. I would never let a student pilot solo, much less go for a practical test unless he or she were proficient and comfortable making power off landings, and in choosing and using off field landing sites. Perhaps your training was just very weak. But I doubt it.

Given a choice between landing a perfectly servicable light airplane such as the Cirrus, and attempting to land under canopy...I cant' imagine why anybody would be fool enough to deploy the parachute.

It's one thing to eject when you are in a 23,000 lb aircraft that has lost it's flight controls. Very understandable, and might I say, reasonable. It's another thing when experiencing a power loss in a light airplane like a Cirrus, to sacrifice a fully controllable and landable airframe to a non-rigid drift-with-the-wind parachute.

I've been jumping parachutes for 20 years now. Traditional round parachutes, paracommander hybrids, and square, ram-air canopies. Why anybody would elect to land in the Cirrus under canopy when they have any other choice, is beyond me. A fully controllable aircraft IS the safety device, and it's got far more options and capability than the parachute. Of course, Flight Safety International is fond of saying that the most important safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot, and they're not far wrong...we don't need to look to handles and ripcords as the saving grace for each event that's occured...just a pilot that isn't dumber than a box of hammers.

 

[ePilot22]

Now that's what I'm talking about...

Well said Avbug.




eP.

 

[FlyingSkip]

Love Notes

There's nothing that makes you like someone more than when they make your case for you, so AvBug...this one is for you! Even though you pulled a couple of my quotes, what you said simply (and much more effectively!) pointed out exactly the points I was trying to make! First, the equipment is never the problem unless it is flawed inherently by design or operation---the CAPS system should never be the scapegoat in a discussion about the safety of a Cirrus airplane. There has NEVER been an instance of the CAPS system not deploying when called upon to do so. Some might point to the "deployment" several weeks ago by the instructor/student in the pattern, but the NTSB seems to believe that the handle was actually pulled after/as the the aircraft was on the ground. The question then comes back to your point---what kind of training is needed to help pilots decide when/if to utilize the CAPS? I tried to point out several instances where I personally would CONSIDER utilizing the system---any Cirrus pilot should think before any flight about there personal "go/no go" on pulling the handle and riding it down. You made my point perfectly---safety equipment must be used correctly and in the right circumstances to help effect the safety of the people involved.

AS far as the "dead stick" comment---I won't argue with you, but I would raise the issue that power-off landings to a runway or practice POLs to ensure a decent scan and correct field selection are a far cry from actually riding an aircraft all the way down and coming to a stop in a farmer's field, on a rural road or (God forbid!) into a tree line. When the engine isn't just at idle but is DEATHLY quiet, and you know that you're not just going to fail the checkride but are going to have ONE opportunity to get it in the field, it takes on a different meaning altogether that someone that has never done it just doesn't know. That was my point. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but the shake I had in my hands after walking away for a wrecked airplane on a January night was something that no practice maneuver is ever going to duplicate, just like no one will ever be able to describe a broken heart, the loss of a parent, etc until they are actually experienced. In the situation above, would I have done anything different if I had had CAPS available---not a bit. I made a controlled landing to the best spot available and had much more control than I would have floating down at the whim of the wind under a canopy. But, there are times where I'm glad I have it available as another "arrow in my quiver", and the argument that was made earlier on this post that ther'es never a need for that "arrow" is ridiculous. That was my point, and I think between the two of us hopefully we've beaten that horse really dead!

I agree completely with your assertion that the best piece of safety gear on any aircraft is, or at least should be, between the pilot's ears! Better training may be the answer to pilot's decision-making as to when to utilize the CAPS, but as I said before---there are a lot of times when pilots make bad decisions about many aspects of flying. Hopefully, any of us are continually striving to be better, safer and more knowledgeable about what/where we fly at all times. If we strive to do that, we SHOULD be safer pilots whether we have CAPS, skidfloats, or any other piece of whiz-bang gear available. In a perfect world, none of that safety stuff would ever be used---but it's nice to know it's there when the world starts turning a little less perfect!