Cirrus is not my kind of plane but I congratulate them on the idea of the parachute.
It has saved quite a bit of people, no one can argue that, and some saves only the parachute would have done it (like a passenger pull with an incapacitated pilot.

Interesting read.

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safet ... story.aspx

In order to get certified they had to add the parachute because it has problems recovering from a spin!!!

TangoFox wrote:In order to get certified they had to add the parachute because it has problems recovering from a spin!!!

Ummmm, not quite. In fact, the Cirrus airplanes were subjected to spin testing, and no unusual spin characteristics were documented. In fact, the MOLE cuffed wing used on the Cirrus is based on the same NASA studies that the Sportsman leading edge cuff was based on. The Cirrus wing is quite spin resistant.

One of the points that Cirrus makes is that the vast majority of spins are actually entered at or below 1000 feet agl. And, as the accident statistics prove, very few pilots are capable of recovering from an inadvertent spin at that height. That is the primary reason that Cirrus opted to certificate the airplane with the parachute. That and the fact that the parachute could save the day in other situations as well.

But, the Cirrus airplanes were subjected to spin testing to meet JAA (European) certification, and there wasn't anything there that suggested they couldn't be certified for spins under the normal one turn certification requirement. Here's part of the FAA report to JAA:

b.
Spin Behavior
i.
Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations.

Configuration 1 Normal Spins
Level Entry C.G.
Clean-Power Off
Takeoff-Power Off
Landing-Power Off
Clean-Power On
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
Fwd
2
, Mid, Aft
Fwd
Fwd
Fwd
2
1.
All spins conducted at gross weight.

2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against
the spin direction.
ii.
Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above referenced reports.

So, not a full spin test program, but there weren't any surprises in any case, and JAA accepted the data.

MTV

I think the parachute is as much about brilliant marketing as anything. I'd venture to guess that most people that fly Cirruses (Cirri?) are married men, and what can make the spouse feel better than to know the plane has a parachute built in. Safety, or at least the apperance of such, sells. Of course the actual safety record is something different altogether.

Exactly- an added safety feature, no doubt, and brilliant marketing possibly more so.

On another, car related forum, I made the comment that many pilots feel that some amount of airmanship has been lost to CAPS after one poster said that the Cory Lidle accident (http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/FAA/lidle_cory_ntsb.pdf) "more than warranted a CAPS deployment". Of course she and her flight instructor husband took offense to my comment, and why wouldn't they? They operate a flight school in southern California that primarily trains in Cirrus aircraft

I haven't read through the whole COPA link, but I've already seen a couple that back up my premise. Event #45 is one of them. Maybe it actually saved the guy's life, but the way I read it, he got confused when ATC changed runways on him and said "screw it" and popped the CAPS instead of just flying the plane and following the "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" that we're all taught.

"Safety, or at least the apperance of such, sells. Of course the actual safety record is something different altogether"
Same thing Homeland Security and Canadian Secret Police. Don't worry brother we are looking after you.
Feel sorry for the believers.

scottf wrote:I think the parachute is as much about brilliant marketing as anything. I'd venture to guess that most people that fly Cirruses (Cirri?) are married men, and what can make the spouse feel better than to know the plane has a parachute built in. Safety, or at least the apperance of such, sells. Of course the actual safety record is something different altogether.

Indeed, it is.

Pierre_R wrote:

scottf wrote:I think the parachute is as much about brilliant marketing as anything. I'd venture to guess that most people that fly Cirruses (Cirri?) are married men, and what can make the spouse feel better than to know the plane has a parachute built in. Safety, or at least the apperance of such, sells. Of course the actual safety record is something different altogether.

Indeed, it is.

What's that quote? "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

That bottom graph tells me two things- 1) 2014 was a good year for Cirrus pilots (if you add up the fatal accidents and "saves" for the previous 6 years, it's pretty flat with a spike in '11) and 2) it's safer to land under a parachute than not. It seems that pilots are more willing to use the CAPS than in years previous.

For me, I like to think that if I had an engine failure over farmland, I'd just put it down in a field. The instructor I mentioned earlier said he'd likely use the CAPS, since statistically, the CAPS is more survivable. I think I might have a hard time giving up control of a flyable airplane, especially in higher winds where you may not know where you'll end up under the parachute. But that's me, speaking as a pilot that doesn't have the option of a parachute, so I'm always looking for the best potential crash landing area and figuring out how I would put the plane down in there (as I'm sure most, if not all, here do). Maybe I'm "doing it wrong".

Unfortunately, there's a bit of a "coffin corner" where you may not really know what's in the field until it's too late to get a full deployment from the CAPS, so you've given up the control you had, but don't have the safety benefit of a deployed parachute. This is going to lead pilots to deploy the CAPS in some situations where a forced landing may have been perfectly survivable, and not really a "save". No one will ever really know if the occupants of these airplanes would have been safe or not, but Cirrus will call them ALL "saves" for marketing purposes. To me, the parachute is another tool to be used when shit REALLY hits the fan (unforgiving terrain, night, structural failure), and I think the image and safety of GA would benefit if airframe parachutes were more widely available.

The thing that really got under my skin in the discussion I mentioned in my first post was the comment about using the CAPS being "more than warranted" in the Cory Lidle accident. IMO, it wasn't warranted at all (unfortunately, both occupants died). They were intentionally flying a route where they knew they were either going to have to turn around, or get clearance into the class B. They had a 13 knot wind on their right wing, and they were flying up the right side of the river. They chose to attempt a left hand, downwind turn instead crossing to the other side of the river and making a turn INTO the wind or getting clearance into the class B, and ran out of room for the turn. I don't think intentionally putting yourself in a position where you chose not to use your available tools justifies dumping a perfectly functioning airplane into a river.

Just for the heckuvit, I looked into what it would take to install a BRS in my airplane. It's not available for my model (P172D), but it is available for later model 172s and 182s, for a lot of money--I'm not recalling the amount now, somewhere around $15K sounds familiar. It takes up half of the baggage area (not including any extended baggage area), and it adds about 75 lbs to the empty weight. Just like the Cirrus version, it has to be repacked to the tune of about $11K every few years--I'm thinking 10, but not sure of that. In the case of Cirrus (Cirri), if it's not repacked, the airplane is no longer airworthy. That wouldn't be true of Cessnas with add-on BRS.

I firmly believe that many pilots of dubious skill would be tempted to use the BRS unnecessarily--and that has been proven. I also believe that some pilots have taken chances that they would not have taken without the BRS. But I also think it has actually saved some folks who would have otherwise died. Whether that's because the pilot negligently got into an unrecoverable situation, took too many chances, lacked necessary skill--I don't know. But the more recent emphasis in the Cirrus community to pull the handle early has resulted in more chute deployments, which they document as saves. Who knows if all of them were actual "saves", or whether the occupants could have been "saved" through more skillful flying?

Meanwhile, the marketing goes on, and it's certainly persuasive. Just listen to their ads on AOPA Live every week.

Cary

"Who knows if all of them were actual "saves", or whether the occupants could have been "saved" through more skillful flying?"

That's the whole point of the parachute, so mere mortals (ie the average pilot) don't have to be exceptionally skilled to safely land an aircraft in the following situations for example...

- mid-air collision
- engine failure over rough terrain/city/water
- engine failure at night
- inadvertent VFR into IMC
- pilot incapacitation
- structural failure
- spin (without the skills or currency to recover)
- etc etc etc

The CAPS seems to come into a lot of criticism from experts, but I tell you what, in all the above scenarios I would be rather glad to have that parachute! As mentioned, the Cirrus is quite spin resistant and recovers in the normal manner, but the average pilot may not have the skills to recover in time. Why be like 1,000's of other skilled pilots and spin into the ground when you can pull that red handle and be almost guaranteed to survive? Cirrus training has evolved substantially over the last 5 years or so with a big emphasis on the CAPS and using the CAPS to ensure survival. It gives you a fantastic option lacking from most aircraft. The choice of survival when things turn bad

How many of you would buy a car without airbags simply because your superior driving skills will prevent you from crashing?

Fitting a BRS to a 172 is a real compromise, it halves the baggage space and adds a lot of weight, I wouldn't do it. But there's no compromise with the Cirrus, it has a great big comfortable cabin, lots of baggage space and carries a big load a long way and very quickly. Combine this with the CAPS and it makes for a very useful and very safe aircraft. These attributes are why it's so popular. A lot of people want the advantage of flying cross country but are not necessarily all consumed by flying, so it's a great tool for business or family travel and the average pilot can fly them and not only feel safe but be safe if they understand the CAPS and use it if required.

"pilots of dubious skill" also have the right to fly!

So don't criticise the guy who messes up, pulls the chute and saves his family, because unfortunately there are plenty who didn't have that option. If I have an engine failure in a Cirrus and my family is on board, I'll pull that chute no question.

And in case it's not obvious, I'm a big fan of Cirrus. And I'm also lucky enough to regularly fly a lot of different aircraft types so I have something to compare it to

It's about time you came for a skid in a Cirrus Battson!!

onefitty wrote:"Who knows if all of them were actual "saves", or whether the occupants could have been "saved" through more skillful flying?"

That's the whole point of the parachute, so mere mortals (ie the average pilot) don't have to be exceptionally skilled to safely land an aircraft in the following situations for example...

- mid-air collision
- engine failure over rough terrain/city/water
- engine failure at night
- inadvertent VFR into IMC
- pilot incapacitation
- structural failure
- spin (without the skills or currency to recover)
- etc etc etc

The CAPS seems to come into a lot of criticism from experts, but I tell you what, in all the above scenarios I would be rather glad to have that parachute! As mentioned, the Cirrus is quite spin resistant and recovers in the normal manner, but the average pilot may not have the skills to recover in time. Why be like 1,000's of other skilled pilots and spin into the ground when you can pull that red handle and be almost guaranteed to survive? Cirrus training has evolved substantially over the last 5 years or so with a big emphasis on the CAPS and using the CAPS to ensure survival. It gives you a fantastic option lacking from most aircraft. The choice of survival when things turn bad

How many of you would buy a car without airbags simply because your superior driving skills will prevent you from crashing?

Fitting a BRS to a 172 is a real compromise, it halves the baggage space and adds a lot of weight, I wouldn't do it. But there's no compromise with the Cirrus, it has a great big comfortable cabin, lots of baggage space and carries a big load a long way and very quickly. Combine this with the CAPS and it makes for a very useful and very safe aircraft. These attributes are why it's so popular. A lot of people want the advantage of flying cross country but are not necessarily all consumed by flying, so it's a great tool for business or family travel and the average pilot can fly them and not only feel safe but be safe if they understand the CAPS and use it if required.

"pilots of dubious skill" also have the right to fly!

So don't criticise the guy who messes up, pulls the chute and saves his family, because unfortunately there are plenty who didn't have that option. If I have an engine failure in a Cirrus and my family is on board, I'll pull that chute no question.

I agree 100% with you, and cannot understand why its criticized by many.
Will I buy a Cirrus just because the parachute? I wouldnt, in this kind of category plane I would rather buy a Mooney, I will probably wish they come with a chute though.
For my mission Im happy with my 182 ( a chute would be a nice addition, but the cost is the issue)

The Cirrus parachute is like airbags, antilock brakes and the new collision avoidance- really cool, every car should have it but rarely worth retro fitting.

Anecdotally, folks feel it gives a false sense of security which might encourage some to fly in weather or where otherwise not prudent. I don't think there is any proof to this but it does seem plausible. Do people drive more reckless knowing the airbags will save them better than the seatbelt? Are the roads more dangerous because the bad drivers aren't being killed off as quickly anymore?

The other is that folks will pull the chute in otherwise save-able situations. To that I say, so what? It's their airplane and that is what insurance is for. You have an engine out, you pull the chute, you walk away. You fly into IMC, you pull the chute, you walk away. You have a heart attack, your SPOUSE pulls the chute, you walk away.

Isn't any landing that you walk away from a good one?

There is only one relevant statistic to me...that there are more people alive with CAPS than without, regardless of any justification for their use in each incident.

The debate has happened before. The Brits in WW1 prohibited the wearing of parachutes by their fighter pilots because it was thought that it offered too easy an "out" by their pilots, that their manliness and image would suffer, etc. At the end of the war, it dawned on the stiff upper lipped gents that humans might be becoming harder to backfill than the cruddy deathtraps they were flying. It sounds cynical now, and so does the rap on CAPS.

An emergency landing is a statistic. In good weather, overall, you have a 1 in 5 chance of dying (not just getting injured). In IMC, the odds are closer to 50-50. In an emergency situation, it is no different than russian roulette with a theoretical 5-shooter and arguing whether a six shooter is less manly. CAPS saves lives. So do helmets and ELT's.

Some people spend 15k or more on an MT prop to gain a little performance, or 15k+ on a PPonk, or the same on WingX. I don't view a chute as being much different. the outcomes of a slightly different prop, slightly bigger engine, or whatever is only going to improve real utility outcomes by a tiny, very expensive margin but may be useful in the few use cases they are needed. The addition of a parachute is going to increase the survivability of an average flight by a tiny expensive margin, but may be worth a lot when the time comes. It is a matter of taste, like helmets and personal locator beacons and bush wheels.

What's the average cost of installing a BRS in a 172 type of aircraft?
Do they have an option for the fastback cessnas?

I was just gonna let this post sit there as another mildly misinformed example of Cirrus-bashing that used to be common on Beechtalk and POA forums. (They don't do that so much lately.) But then, the successful Cirrus chute pull in Texas yesterday after an engine out shortly after take off over a densely developed area, juxtaposed with the awful Bonanza triple family fatality last week has inspired me to write responses to a few of Cary's comments.

Cary wrote: it has to be repacked to the tune of about $11K every few years--I'm thinking 10, but not sure of that.

You are correct sir. Ten years for the Cirrus BRS installation. Cost may be a bit higher than that, depending on who does it.

Cary wrote:I firmly believe that many pilots of dubious skill would be tempted to use the BRS unnecessarily--and that has been proven.

Well, here you start out expressing an opinion (your firm belief), and we're all entitled to our own opinions. But then you sorta try to turn it into a fact (the "and that has been proven" part), and we're not all entitled to our own facts.

The 2006 pull by a passenger in Jamaica is the only one I know of that may have been, to use your word, "unnecesary'. Let's say "questionable" at least. And that wasn't even by the pilot, dubious or not.

The fact is we (the Cirrrus pilot community) have had the opposite problem. For the first ten to twelve years since the introduction of the Cirrus SR20 then SR22, every year there were fatalities under circumstances where a chute pull likely would have saved the day. Since the pilots were dead, we couldn't interview them to find out if they just forgot it was there, or if the "law of primacy" (stuff you learn first is what you do in a pinch) took over and they focused on what they learned as PPL students (pitch for best glide, pick a place, etc.)

Through the tireless efforts primarily of one man (the tall, bespectacled, pilot with a PhD and a background in how we learn, named Rick Beach) our culture changed, and we gave up the macho BS, and started re-wiring our brains to include "Consider CAPS" early in the tightly compressed decision-making process one faces in an airborne emergency. It took years, and the charts I posted earlier in this thread attest to the results.

My personal case is a bit unusual for a Cirrus driver, and involves this great BCP forum and community. A couple of things caused me to take a different turn. One, I used to hangar my Cirrus part time in Truckee, across from and two doors down from Kevin Quinn. The other was getting my seaplane rating, then buying a Kitfox with amphib floats, getting my tailwheel endorsement, doing a two day spin and upset recovery training, then buying and flying and spinning and just plain having fun in an old taildragger for over a hundred hours, attending the HSF, and eventually converting my beloved 300 HP STOL 182 amphib onto 29" ABW's and adding a third STOL mod (it already had the Sportsman cuff and the Wing-X extensions. I added VG's).

I thought that as I learned more about and became more proficient in off-airport landings, that I'd become less likely to have to pull the chute in the event of an engine failure. Guess what? The opposite happened! Now that I know more about what it takes to make a reasonably well-assessed off field landing, there's no way I'm going to voluntarily glide a small-tired, low wing Cirrus with a 70 mph stall speed down to a spot I have never seen, not have a chance to make several low passes and maybe even roll (or "drag" as a recent thread discussed) wheels on, and have the option to power up and go around. Not if I have another option that has been demonstrated to save my bacon 99% of the time.

Cary wrote:I also believe that some pilots have taken chances that they would not have taken without the BRS.

Yes, we do. We've discussed this to death on the COPA forum. The fancy name is "risk homeostasis". Simply put, as stuff gets better, more robust, and generally safer, we push the activity. As highways got wider and smoother, and cars got better tires and brakes and airbags and such, we drove faster (my Dad remembered that going "forty-forty five" was being quite a daredevil in an old Dodge!)

No question that I undertook missions in my Cirrus that I would not undertake in my 1964 Cessna. And likewise I did flights in my Cessna that I wouldn't try in my Kitfox. And the chute was only one component of the Cirrus equipment package that allowed me to do long cross country trips all over this continent, day and night, and stay within my personal risk profile (which is fairly conservative). 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.

When you, Cary, choose to use the phrase "taken chances", it puts an automatically negative connotation on the whole concept of aviation mission profile and risk management. Let's face it, the flying represented on this forum is overall much riskier than the comparatively "dull" point A to point B transportation to and from big, paved, often towered airports that Cirrus drivers typically do.

Cary wrote: But I also think it has actually saved some folks who would have otherwise died.

No question there. I've met a few of them. One is a good friend. He and his daughter will tell you that there is one statistic that trumps the others. Either you live or you die. It is binary. If you die, you are 100% dead. Doesn't matter that they'll say nice things at your funeral and rave about how you died with your boots on, trying to dead-stick in and saving that expensive chute for another day.

In this discussion, only one group of people actually puts their money on the line. That is the aviation insurance underwriters. Two interesting points to consider. One, for comparable pilots and hull values, the rates are lower for a chute-equipped Cirrus than for a light twin. Two, a growing number of them will waive the deductible if you pull the chute. They want you to pull. Not because they are sweethearts but because they employ actuaries to whom only data matters and the data informs them that the chute saves lives and they know that the cost to repair or replace a plane after a chute deployment is nothing compared to the cost of litigation and settlements from fatalities.

Cary wrote: Who knows if all of them were actual "saves", or whether the occupants could have been "saved" through more skillful flying?

My buddy Dick McGlaughlin would tell you that it sure as hell is a "save". As to whether or not he and his daughter might possibly have been saved by other courses of action, he'll tell you he doesn't give a rat's ass. Heck, I know a guy who tried to commit suicide by swallowing what he thought was a lethal dose of sleeping pills while at 16,500' in his airplane. He woke up in a hospital, divorced his pretty but evil wife, got treatment for depression, and started a new life in another state. We can be "saved" from death in an airplane crash in several ways. In each case, I'll choose the one with the highest odds.

As far as being "skillful". Dick has given a few talks and you learn early on that he is a humble man and that an engine failure over the ocean beyond glide range of land goes a long way to reinforcing humility. He's a CFII with a few thousand hours and besides his Cirrus has built and flies a Glastar Sportsman both on floats and in tailwheel config for fun. Yet he calls himself a "below average" pilot. When asked why, he likes to point out that whenever pilots are surveyed and asked if they consider themselves to be of average, below average, or above average skill, the humble say average, and most of us say above average. You don't have to major in statistics to know that half of us think we're better than we are! And in a tough emergency situation, Dick says that we get worse, not better.

Cary wrote:Meanwhile, the marketing goes on, and it's certainly persuasive. Just listen to their ads on AOPA Live every week.

Yep, it is, and thank God! Cirrus is the only company selling a significant number of new, small certified GA planes today, more than the next three brands put together. And of course the experimental business is doing OK. If it wasn't for them, GA would be declining a lot faster than it already is. And before you say you think that's not a bad thing, realize that the entire GA infrastructure of airports, Avgas, mechanics, etc., depends on a thriving small GA industry. We on this forum get to have fun in our fifty or sixty year old Skywagons, experimentals, and such, due in part to the infrastructure that in turn depends on a lively (if not thriving) GA economy. I've met the Klapmeier brothers and I think their induction into the Hall of Fame is well-deserved. After surviving a mid-air collision (the other guy didn't) Alan and his brother Dale set out to change GA for the better, and they did.

PR

^^^^^^. Very well said^^^^^^^

I'd buy a chute for my 206 in a heartbeat if one existed.
Every time i fly my family i think about having one. Don't give a crap when I'm solo.

Perhaps we should all quit using seat belts too because it makes us take more risks and use less piloting skill to avert disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Risk_compensation

CAPS save lives.

Great post Pierre, thanks for all the info. Flying at night or hard IFR, among other pertinent scenarios, the BRS system is an excellent safety feature. I can think of many fatal accidents in recent history that could have turned out very differently were the aircraft equipped with a BRS.

I've looked a lot at fast A to B planes, and what spooks me about many of them is the high stall speeds etc., SOL in an engine out compared to my bush wheeled STOL taildragger. Two different regimes altogether, and when passengers are involved, I'll take all the edge I can get.

Well, I'll say this, Pierre, you certainly take offense easily. I didn't mean to start a flame war, or to malign the Cirrus at all. You took it that way, but that wasn't my intent.

As for taking chances they might not otherwise take, I read an NTSB report involving a Cirrus which came down because it iced up in a known icing situation. Yeah, he had the weeping wing, but flying into known ice with a single piston makes so little sense--unless there's a handle to pull if the airplane can't handle the ice. Foolish pilot trick? Yeah, for sure. Would he have done it in another piston single? I don't know. You call it "risk homeostasis"; I call it stupid.

As for pulling the handle unnecessarily, that happened in the Denver area some time ago, when a pilot got disoriented in night VFR. Instead of flying the airplane as would any reasonably competent pilot, he pulled the handle. He wasn't out of control, just confused, but his solution was extreme.

Those are the only two that I know about, and I didn't say that there were a lot of them.

I certainly agree that the CAPS system has worked when it's been used, that it wasn't used very often in early Cirrus history, and that there are some situations in which it would be the only solution.

It's still great marketing--that you must admit.

On whether a BRS can be installed in older Cessnas, like straight back versions, the answer is no. I looked on the BRS website again yesterday, I don't recall how far back they go, but it's only for newer models.

Cary