I didn't take Cary's post as Cirrus bashing but I'm grateful it prompted Pierre to contribute his perspective.

I've probably been swayed into thinking a good pilot would be able to survive an emergency landing because I've read to many great stories. Now it occurs to me that the really great pilots that died in such circumstances never had a chance to write about their experience.

I think the chute is a great idea,imagine if every single GA plane came with a chute.
What will happen?
Lots and lots of more pilots for sure will fly, lots and lots of accidents too, lots of saves too, yes many will do crazy stupid things.
Lots of very good pilots will still be alive, lots of bad pilots too.

Picture the scenario, lots of people who are afraid to fly would buy a plane, lots .
GA industry would be bigger and prices cheaper ?

As an example I used to fly RC models, all those guys love airplanes, most are just afraid, I was afraid too, and just decided to fly when I was diagnosed with Celiac desease, and now I cant stop flying , totally addicted.
I wanted a plane with a chute, but since I couldnt afford a chute I made my plane to be able to have the slower stall speed as possible.

If I could afford a chute definitely will get one.
Cirrus did a great job.

albravo wrote:I've probably been swayed into thinking a good pilot would be able to survive an emergency landing because I've read to many great stories

I used to wonder all the time why someone would pull a chute in a cirrus after an engine failure over hospitable terrain... Seems like in many cases there are survivable LZ's that don't require the use of the BRS. When I first started flying an SR22 I used to think there was no way I'd pull the chute if the engine stopped over farmland or treeless terrain. Well, I did some research. Turns out a Cirrus is about the worst plane you could try to land in a field. Why? Well look at the stall speed... Then look at the way the doors open... Then take into consideration the material of construction and the wonderful amount of fuel they can carry. If you look at cirrus accident statistics, you will find many a good pilot burned to death upside down after trying to make an emergency landing in a field. The design of the airplane isn't conducive to "settin er down in the pasture". Your speed and that nosewheel will most likely cause you to flip, be unable to open the doors, and burn. Engine out in a cirrus with no airport in glide range? Pull the chute... I believe whole heartedly that it is a lifesaver and so much more than marketing. Do stupid people take unnecessary risks because of the parachute? Sure, but I can live with that if it affords me the option to come home safe one day...

I think this is a great discussion, and I value Pierre's input as a Cirrus and "other" aircraft owner. It seems mostly everyone likes the idea of an airframe parachute, and maybe their personal experience aircraft frame of reference comes into play when deciding what a "legitimate" deployment would be.

I've never read a report about a Cirrus nosewheel failure during a forced landing, but haven't really read many accident reports in general. I know that the two seat A model RV's have a known propensity for the nosewheel to dig in and flip the plane, wasn't sure about the Cirrus.

Pierre_R wrote:I and many Cirrus drivers fly missions that we otherwise would require a light twin to do, and statistics show that we do them more safely than the light twin community. For instance, if it wasn't for the chute and the rest of the equipment package, I would not have made two humanitarian relief flights to Haiti after the earthquake. With PFD's and a raft, I felt comfortable.

I'm curious how the parachute factors into your comfort to fly a single engine for that mission. It would seem that you may have more time to prepare for the ditching while you're under canopy than if you were flying the plane, but do you feel you would have a high probability of flipping if you were in your Cessna, for example?

Alaskabound wrote:[quotThe design of the airplane isn't conducive to "settin er down in the pasture". Your speed and that nosewheel will most likely cause you to flip, be unable to open the doors, and burn. Engine out in a cirrus with no airport in glide range? Pull the chute... I believe whole heartedly that it is a lifesaver and so much more than marketing. Do stupid people take unnecessary risks because of the parachute? Sure, but I can live with that if it affords me the option to come home safe one day...

Im a little confused.....the Cirrus' stall speed isn't much different than a dozen other similar size aircraft. Many of those airplanes carry as much or more fuel, and many have nose wheels.

A previous poster noted the stall speed of the Cirrus as 70. That's ten it's too high in fact....its 60 in fact....and of course, that's at max gross weight.

I think the parachute is a great idea and a lot more than a marketing ploy. It creates compromise, but Cirrus has done a great job of managing those.

As far as off airport landings associated with an engine failure, I can tell you from personal experience that what looks to be a decent landing site may not be at all once you touch.

MTV

A parachute is like the recent extensive discussion on insurance. Some want it, and will pay for it because it is value to them. Like travel insurance, or mortgage insurance, etc. I find it somewhat incongruent that the same persons arguing heatedly for full-bubble insurance would scorn at a parachute, but hey ho.

A Decathlon flew together with my Citabria over the Cascades recently. I had two parachutes in my hangar I could have worn, considered it and didn't bother. My values, my choice. The Decathlon took two parachutes along, one for the pilot and one for the passenger - " I don't want to be remembered as the guy that bailed out of the airplane and left the passenger behind". The Decathlon owner might consider a BRS because the concept has value to him to relieve an anxiety. My anxiety is that our nanny-state mentality will mandate BRS for all aircraft, much like any other "improvement" that for an added cost will yield a marginal return on safety.

Once upon a time the push was for two engines, in case one quit. Now a BRS meets the same concern. Cheaper, less complicated, lighter, and applicable to other random rare events, like mid-airs or in-flight structural failures, or loss of control in IMC. A few days ago a Bonanza took off from an airport nearby and developed an engine problem, crashing on a road and seriously injuring the pilot. A Cirrus took off near Houston recently and when the engine quit they BRS'd down into a cul-de-sac, in a good neighbourhood. Hard to argue.

mtv wrote:
A previous poster noted the stall speed of the Cirrus as 70. That's ten it's too high in fact....its 60 in fact....and of course, that's at max gross weight.

MTV

I was the one who posted 70 MPH. For the past couple years I've been reading this forum, it seems that MPH is generally used more than Knots. I use MPH in my STOL 182 and I did in my Kitfox. At the lower speeds it provides a bit more precision.

Per a generic 2011 SR22 (Generation 3) POH, the full flap stall speed with zero degrees bank angle is 62 KIAS, so I converted to MPH in my head and rounded down. (I'm pretty sure my Generation 2 lists 59 knots indicated.) I also figure that in a real life forced off-field landing, I would be so careful about not stalling it, that I would likely impact a couple MPH above the POH stall speed, so for the purposes of that rather lengthy post I wrote, I felt that 70 MPH was a round, conservative number that made the point that these are not STOL planes and there will be a large amount of forward kinetic energy to dissipate.

BTW, I wanted to thank you Mike, for carefully dispelling the myth about the Cirrus needing the chute because it didn't recover from spins. That was a very cogent presentation of the facts and data.

I've been away from the forum for a few days. In response to Cary, well yes, I guess I was a bit sensitive to how you combined references to Cirrus drivers with phrases like pilots of "dubious" ability "taking chances"; and contrasting our actions with those of "more skillful pilots". One of the things I love about this forum is that--other than good-natured ribbing-- Cessna drivers (for example) don't generalize about Cub drivers when one of them makes a mistake and pays a hefty price.

As far as your picking a ten year old case of generally accepted bad decision-making and implying that that was what I meant by changing my mission profile and ADM as a result of the BRS, well, if I wasn't offended before, a guy could get offended by that!

BTW, if anyone is interested, that Norden, CA crash prompted a detailed analysis, with audio/video re-enactment that is quite interesting (Sorry, I don't have the link at hand and I'm rushing a bit). It led to a review of the NWS icing reporting as there was no icing airmet or sigmet provided in the briefing.

It was still a very bad decision, but no one in the know thinks that guy launched into the teeth of a winter storm over the Sierra Nevada Mountains at night in a piston single because he had BRS. In fact, the evidence suggests that it was automatically deployed as a result of stress on the cable as a result of the airframe coming apart when it was a 300+ knot, iced-up, nose-down lawn dart.

As subsequent posters pointed out, even if the presence of a BRS did occassionally contribute to a bad decision, the saves still far outnumber the induced crashes. That's similar to the conclusion of all the highway data. Even though we drive faster with seatbelts, airbags, and ABS, the lives saved far outnumber those taken.

In another thread, helmets are being discussed. Before reading this forum and seeing them at the Anchorage show, I never even considered wearing a helmet in flight. Then again, I skied for thirty years without a helmet but now I always wear one (In fact, it's mandatory when I'm on the clock as an instructor at Heavenly!) So while I haven't rushed out and bought one, it's got me thinking about what sorts of flying it might make sense for.

edited to add this reply to Kelly's post:

In reply to Kelly, about the long over-water flights, yes, the BRS has been used successfully for water ditchings and, along with the rest of the excellent equipment package in the Cirrus, contributed to my decision to do those flights. I don't recall the stats off the top of my head for ditching fixed gear planes in the open ocean, but the incidents of fatalities and serious injuries from the rapid deceleration from landing speed, and flipping, are significant (maybe around the 25% range?). The videos I watched before getting in the pool during egress training stuck with me!


Pierre

Sorry, Pierre, I didn't read carefully enough or I'd have noted the "mph" vs "it's" in your post.

BTW, the certification standard for single engine aircraft limits stall speed to 61 knots. The TBM 850 was certified with a slightly higher stall speed because they convinced the FAA that their 26 G seats provide an equivalent level of safety.

So, understand that the accident record suggests that in the event of an off airport landing, you need to do whatever you can to get your touchdown below that 61 knot speed. Arriving faster can hurt.

MTV

If the Cirrus parachute gets to the 10 year expiration date.
Is the plane not airworthy and needs to be grounded to be repacked?
If so why?

motoadve wrote:If the Cirrus parachute gets to the 10 year expiration date.
Is the plane not airworthy and needs to be grounded to be repacked?
If so why?

Correct, the plane is no longer airworthy after the ten year expiration, until it is repacked by a certified Cirrus Service Center. This is certainly causing some "groans" among the owners because Cirrus is using it as a money maker and the cost is now up near $15K. Of course, when amortized over ten years it's not that bad, but is part of why the CIrrus isn't the cheapest plane to own and operate. If someone is in the market for a nine year old used one, they need to be aware of this cost. The market seems to adjust pretty well for that, with the recently re-packed ones typically going for a bit more than one that is near due.

The answer to "why" is because it is part of the minimum equipment list for the type certificate. It was the philosophy of Alan and Dale Klapmeier that "safety is not an option", so the chute is not optional. Therefore, as MTV explained, while the spin characteristics of the Cirrus are not unusual, they elected not to complete the spin part of the type certification. The only "approved" spin recovery technique, per the POH, is to deploy the chute. Anecdotally, there have been some Cirrus spin recoveries.

Pierre

15k isn't bad, but if it's that or an engine...