CAPS - Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (REDESIGNED)

[BizPilot]

Did you guys hear that Cirrus redesigned the overhead deploying mechanism for the CAPS system on their SR20's and SR22's?

Here is a photo of the redesign:

http://gfx.dvlabs.com/klipmart/campaigns/sta001/images/easybutton_lg_top.gif

 

[C601]

I want my 5secs back lol

 

[Jafar]

Jesus.

Well I've got a little time in the 22, but I tell you I'm not a huge fan. I'm one of the few who says this, but give me a DA40 with a G1000 over a Cirrus any day. Just my opinion. As far as I'm concerned that chute is more of a liability than a safety enhancer.

 

[Metro752]

i thought it was funny

 

[NoPax]

I think the whole reason behind the chute was because they couldn't demonstrate spin recovery in the required amount of turns in the design and testing phase.

I hate that people use it as a panic chute...more pilot-training and vetting is definately required. Water in the static lines, giving unreliable readings, what do he do....pulls the chute, momentary loss of awareness, what does he do...pulls the chute - fly the airplane guys.

When the chute is combined with the TKS wings for inadvertant flight into icing, its a recipe for disaster...anyone see the PIREP given by the Cirrus after encountering 'severe icing' and deploying the CAPS - idiot

 

[H.Agenda]

I'm still really curious of what its like to ride in a cirrus. hot air balloon style.

 

[mtrv]

IMO, they can take the chute out of the Cirrus, when the military is ready to give up the ejection seat!

In the meantime, it's a last chance safety device that's getting a bit abused these days. But overall, it's better to have one than not.

If any military or aerobatic pilots disagree, then fine! Give up your ejection seats and parachutes, and I'll agree with you!

 

[mtrv]

I think the whole reason behind the chute was because they couldn't demonstrate spin recovery in the required amount of turns in the design and testing phase.

It's not the reason. Read the story behind the Cirrus development ---sometime.

 

[mtrv]

Jesus.

Well I've got a little time in the 22, but I tell you I'm not a huge fan. I'm one of the few who says this, but give me a DA40 with a G1000 over a Cirrus any day. Just my opinion. As far as I'm concerned that chute is more of a liability than a safety enhancer.

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.

 

[ePilot22]

If any military or aerobatic pilots disagree, then fine! Give up your ejection seats and parachutes, and I'll agree with you!

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.

In the meantime, it's a last chance safety device that's getting a bit abused these days.

Training. Engine failure...training. VFR into IMC...training. Icing...training. Using a parachute because of your own stupidity is not a last chance safety device, it's a comfort device that allows stupid people to continue being stupid and making poor decisions.



eP.

 

[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...