Glad to see where you were flying. Pretty area of the county, perhaps in a stark but beautiful way.
Folks, just a reminder that this discussion is in the Guest forum.
Vijay, you are meeting some of the more prolific and generous contributors to the Members side of the COPA forums. And after joining, you can search the hundreds of thousands of posts about just about anything you might question in your quest for flying safety. At $65 per year, it’s one of the best investments in flying you can make – even if you do not choose to fly a Cirrus but instead stick around for the knowledge gained. And if you do choose to fly a Cirrus, like Nate said, this is a special community . . .
“Am I really keeping risk profile the same or is it an illusion?”
Vijay,
Great question. You the pilot will always be the greatest risk factor to your flying.
The chute enjoys an admirable safety record. But, there is an illusion inherent in thinking you can switch from a platform you know well, to a new airframe you don’t. In fact, chute notwithstanding, wouldn’t you be at lower risk in your current make and model now, as compared with say your first 100 hrs time in type in the new Cirrus? Yes, I suppose you lower the risk of having to make a forced landing at night. But, you more than offset this by the inherently higher risk of night flight, particularly in a new to you airframe.
In this game, we need to realize the difference between “because” and “in spite of.” When we get away with higher risk flights, do we think it’s “because” of our cockpit decision making, or did our success come “in spite of” it?
In the Cirrus community, we look upon the chute as an important safety tool. The biggest hurdle to its use is us. You need to train to use it when appropriate, or you’ll likely forget it’s there. We’ve lost Cirrus pilots in emergency situations where they failed to pull the chute in loss of control scenarios.
Fly safe and good luck with your decision. If you are seriously considering the Cirrus, please join our organization so you can read up on the airframe and its flight characteristics.
The second CAPS deployment was over the mountains in Canada in an SR20 at night. They landed in extreme terrain, slid a couple hundred feet, and then stopped. Called in the rescue on his cell phone IIRC.
One of the things that surprised me as the CAPS saga unfolded was that they all came out just fine into rough terrain or vegetation. I would not have expected that back in 2002. It is a testament to just how little energy there is to dissipate when going 17 knots, and also a testament to the strong “roll cage” construction of the cabin and the 23G seat structure.
I think these can lead to a fatal outcome if used as-designed. It is one thing to glide to an airport. It is another thing to glide to an airport such that you are high enough to do an overhead circle and fly a pattern to a runway. Straight-ins are frequently attempted and frequently misjudged with fatal consequences. If you set these aids up to only show airports that you can arrive at at 1500 AGL, that would be one thing. I don’t know if any of them let you set it up that way.
That was some rugged terrain. What do the financial people quote? Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. I would definitely put that one, along with some others we could cover in the luck column. How about the old guy that crashed nose first with the engine running, breaking the wing and releasing all the fuel without catching fire! I know that I don’t possess that kind of luck, so I would err on the side of caution.
I’ve owned my 2007 SR22TN for eight months now. I love it! Not a single complaint. However, I’m constantly wondering what my next plane is going to be. I’m certain I’m not alone with regard to that. I live in Tucson and fly to Colorado once or twice a week for business, so terrain is an issue. I’m surprised there isn’t more discussion comparing the Cirrus to the Diamond DA42. The new model, VI, looks incredibly competitive to the Cirrus in terms of price, speed, and even better economy…with two engines. I realize the older Thielert diesel engines were a nightmare but the new Austro diesels look great. When I’m flying over the mountains, or anywhere for that matter, I think I’d rather limp to an airport on one engine than pull the chute. Although I did do a day of practicing the chute pull with Mike Radomsky in the simulator. Invaluable.
I don’t know about the Ausie app, but Xavion provided the highway in the sky boxes for a normal approach. It accounted for flaps and gear, if needed. It chose the best RW for wind, but you could override the RW selection, and it would set up a new approach.
I flew several test profiles, and it was remarkable.
I love the DA42. Scheduled mx was an expensive issue, and reliability, as well as speed. And UL was terrible. Several improvements have been made, but haven’t looked closely at them.
It is one of the tamest engine out twins you can fly - an extremely safe plane.
The older Thielert, and now Continentals, look ridiculously expensive in terms of maintenance. It looks like they may have solved that problem with the Austros.
Thanks everyone for the tremendous input. It definitely gives a lot of food for thought. I like the framework Jeff had on the 4 risk factors. Since 1 is given. The question is does the chute allow you to add better security in adding risk factors. The conclusions I draw from discussion are it allows a better safety margin when you add any one of them (2,3,4). But might be getting aggressive if you add two or all three.
Also to me there are degrees of mountain flying. When you are in the desert and high up. You do have some control over getting away from the mesas. Clearly Rockies is a different ball game.
Certainly they were lucky that the slide stopped. I often wondered whether the parachute would have opened and hefted them if they slid off that cliff at the end of the slide.
And this plane was airlifted off the mountain and subsequently rebuilt and flown again by this pilot. Gary Black has the pictures and story. Nice outcome!
