Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Very very interesting PIREP

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

flyf15

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Posts
548
Well guys, looks like another Cirrus used its parachute. This just happened an hour and a half ago.

MGM UUA /OV SCD 270004/TM 2200/FL090/TP SR22/IC SVR ICG 077-0900/RM ACFT WAS DESCENDING BY PARACHUTE DUE TO SEVRE ICG BUILDUP

I'll have to remember that for the next time I want to take a Cirrus into severe icing.
 
Last edited:
Seems the parachute, is haveing an adverse effect on peoples decision making skills.

"Oh it's ok to fly through the icing conditions, If it gets too much we can always pull the parachute"

Not all though, I know a CFI i worked with who put one into a field when an improperly fixed fuel selector starved the engine of fuel. Just cause the chute is there doesn't make it the best option.
 
I heard a story recently about a cirrus that had an engine failure in the traffic pattern and the pilot pulled the chute, everyone on board died supposedly. This is just a guess but I wonder if the chute hasn't HURT more people than its helped.....
 
A cirrus crashed in Lancaster, CA, in the last day or so; parachute deployed in the pattern, with all dead, I believe. That was something like the 14th fatal crash out of 31 in the last few years.

I've decended out of cloud under canopy in the winter with ice on the canopy, and a coating of ice on my chest, arms, lets, and face.
 
I recall a recent article I read in AOPA and Flying. It said that the chutes had only been used a few times and that they had been use successfully and safely.

In the same token, there have been several crashes of Cirrus Aircraft; mainly due to pilot error. You're putting pilots who are extremely unexperienced and putting them into a very fast and capable airplane. Cirrus, like the Baron and the A36, are doctor killers. Inexperience and lack of proficiency is killing these people; not mechanical failure of the aircraft.

I would like to know more about this recent Cirrus crash (chute deploys in the pattern). There's a chance the pilot pulled the chute at too low an altitude??
 
The CAPS is only designed to work if you have altitude below you. It has been tested successfully many times by the factory test pilots. The Cirrus is a great airplane. I love to fly it and think it is a very safe airplane. The problem is the inexperience of the pilots and their reliance on the systems to save them when they get in trouble. There are a little over a dozen people, plus the four today, out there walking around today because the parachute saved their lives. I'm glad to hear there was a good outcome in today's deployment.

I've posted some info on the CAPS below for those that aren't very familiar with how it is designed to work. It is straight out of the SR22 training guide:

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is designed to lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground in the event of a Life Threatening Emergency. The system is intended to save the lives of the occupants but will most likely destroy the aircraft and may, in adverse circumstances, cause serious injury or death to the occupants

The following information is meant to guide your decision about CAPS activation. It is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot in command, to determine when and how CAPS will be used.


Deployment Attitude
  • CAPS has been tested in all flap configurations at speeds ranging from Vso to Vo. Deployment from a 1 turn spin was also tested.
  • The rocket would successfully recover the aircraft into its level descent attitude under parachute as long as the parachute was introduced into free air.
However, it can be assumed that to minimize the chances of parachute entanglement and reduce aircraft oscillations under the parachute, the CAPS should be activated from a wings-level, upright attitude if at all possible. This deceleration increases with airspeed but in all cases within the parachute envelope should be less than 3 g’s.During this deceleration a slight nose-up may be experienced, particularly at high speed; however, the rear riser is intentionally snubbed short to preclude excessive nose-up pitch. Following any nose-up pitching, the nose will gradually drop until the aircraft is hanging nose-low beneath the canopy.

Eight seconds after deployment, the rear riser snub line will be cut and the aircraft tail will drop down into its final approximately level attitude. Once stabilized in this attitude, the aircraft may yaw slowly back and
forth or oscillate slightly as it hangs from the parachute.


Deployment Speed
  • The maximum speed at which deployment has been demonstrated is 133 KIAS. Deployment at higher speeds could subject the parachute and aircraft to excessive loads that could result in structural failure.
  • Once a decision has been made to deploy CAPS, make all reasonable efforts to slow to the minimum possible airspeed. However, if time and altitude are critical, and/or ground impact is imminent, the CAPS should be activated regardless of airspeed.
Deployment Altitude
  • No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as other environmental factors. In all cases however, the chances of a successful deployment increase with altitude.
Loss of Altitude
  • Demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a stabilized parachute is 920 ft.
  • Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 ft.
With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the system without delay.


Hazards of Deployment
  • Ignition of pyrotechnic device - ROCKET
  • Lateral speed over the ground dependent on wind speed. If the wind is 30 kts then you will be moving 30 kts when you touch down.
  • Aircraft may be dragged on the ground by wind gusts
  • No directional control - You will probably NOT touch down with the nose pointing in direction of travel
  • No choice of landing site
  • No release after deployment – There is no way to cut away the chute after it is deployed
  • Vertical speed equivalent to a static drop from 13 ft. or about a 1600FPM descent
  • Nose gear may collapse
  • No guarantee of a safe outcome
 
The CAPS is only designed to work if you have altitude below you.

This may come as a shock, but very few parachute systems are designed to work based on altitude above you ;) .

The problem is the inexperience of the pilots and their reliance on the systems to save them when they get in trouble.

Of the fourteen or so fatal accidents so far, about half have been pilots with a thousand hours or more...one involving a pilot with 41,000 hours.
 
avbug said:
A cirrus crashed in Lancaster, CA, in the last day or so; parachute deployed in the pattern, with all dead, I believe. That was something like the 14th fatal crash out of 31 in the last few years.

I've decended out of cloud under canopy in the winter with ice on the canopy, and a coating of ice on my chest, arms, lets, and face.
Below is a clip I saw and pasted from another site about the latest Cirrus accident-- great points consistent w/ Avbugs recent essays on a recent thread about non-certified aircraft launching into icing.

Good info also on icing and reference to a current article apparently from the author of the comments that follow -- all worth studying -esp if you are on the ground in warm air w/ a clean airframe and a frosty mug in your hand.
=====.
Yet another Cirrus accident! This afternoon while departing Birmingham, AL. "Experienced" pilot of an SR22 (no TKS) flew through an icing layer 3000-4000 ft thick after the passage of a cold front. Was on top at 8000 feet and the aircraft departed controlled flight. CAPS was activated, all three souls on board survived.

I cannot understand why pilots, experienced or not, attempt to challenge Mother Nature with little or no regard for the potential outcome.

The chances of icing was near certain. I'll say that another way. THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT ICING WOULD OCCUR.

1. An AIRMET for icing existed which included Birmingham.
2. Strong cold front passed by earlier in the afternoon.
3. Strong cold-air advection behind the front lowering freezing levels throughout the day.
4. Saturated conditions (0°C dew point depression) from 3,500 ft through 6,700 ft with temperatures of 0°C at 3,500 ft to -5°C at the cloud tops around 7,000 ft. Very high risk of supercooled water droplets in the presence of cold-air advection = A high risk of severe icing.

If anyone doesn't get IFR Magazine, please read my latest article, The Appleman Line, which illustrates the atmospheric conditions that can produce icing.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top