chutes & spins

Guest Discussion
1

In case you haven’t read their Safety Review Finding, under the freedom of information act it is available. It lists the key effects of the chute where accidents traditionally occur with the highest rate. Here are some highlights:

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

2

So what’s your point? In any of these LOW LEVEL takeoff/landing manuevers, are you any worse off with the chute than without it? Does anyone imagine that the chute is supposed to be a total panacea, including for the low-level problems likely to be most bothersome to any plane? Of course any pilot in any machine should be careful of low level problems of this sort.

The only data point from the ones you list worth a second look is the VNe of 135k. If that’s true, then Cirrus should explain how it’s supposed to work in a dive or even at cruise. But your low level points are, to my taste, in the “what else would you possibly expect” category. S. King

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

3

I don’t believe the chute has a VNE.

135 knots is the highest speed it was deployed at in testing.

At altitude 135 knots indicated is a fairly high speed.

The chute is for those situations where you have no other good option.

I’d deploy it at whatever speed I could get down to if the wing in transit light came on.

In case you haven’t read their Safety Review Finding, under the freedom of information act it is available. It lists the key effects of the chute where accidents traditionally occur with the highest rate. Here are some highlights:

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

4

…recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

Does this mean that those 100 plus folks who have used a ballistic parachute and lived didn’t really need one?

I have two friends that are still alive today because of parachutes.

In 1000 hours of flying I have come within 5 feet of a serious mid air collision on two occasions. (Both were from behind, the best scan in the world would not have helped. The aircaft did not have transponders so a TCAS or Skywatch would not have helped either.)

It is always better to have more options that less. When I am 104 years old and I have my fatal loss of conciousness myocardial infarction at the controls I want my young bride to have one more option as well! :wink:

5

chute Vne is only 135kts.
From the POH:
The maximum speed at which deployment has been demonstrated is 135 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 the 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.

BTW Chris (if that’s your real name), I notice you posted your message from Bend, Oregon. Who do you work for?? Does this mean that another aircraft company is researching ballistic chutes??

6

In case you haven’t read their Safety Review Finding, under the freedom of information act it is available. It lists the key effects of the chute where accidents traditionally occur with the highest rate. Here are some highlights:

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

From much earlier conversations with CD about the chute operating airspeeds, they said that the chute has a retaining/constricting ring (not the technical term) which restricts the full opening of the chute until slower speeds are reached.

This works by the ring initially upon chute deployment staying about 1/2 way up the risers. In this location it holds the risers together and restricts the chute from openning fully. As the airspeed slows and thus prressure on the ring reduces, the ring slides downwards towards the plane & the chute fully opens.

For the older among us, you may recall the Apollo space capsules’ parachute descents. The three parachutes opened into a small chute, then, somehow opened fully thereafter. This is essentially the same mechanism on the SR20 chute.

What this does is lower the opening shock/jolt when the chute opens. If it were to fully open at higher airspeeds, the pilot/passengers could be hurt (but I won’t dwell on that), but opening at higher speeds hasn’t been tested. Since the constricting ring has not back-up system, redundancy or failure mode, it is placarded for lower speeds. If you deploy the chute at say 170 kts and the ring works, and it is designed to, then all is fine.

Now I ask you, if you get in a midair in the pattern (or elsewhere) or you have a structural failure with an airspeed of 155 kts, what other choices do you have? Would you rather have an SR20 with a chute or almost any other plane without? It may not be a guarantee, but it is a choice and a chance.

IMHO (I finally figured out what that means!) I’ll take the choice.

7

What about the weight increase of the 22? Max deployment speed should be considerably less to stay within the same structural limitations, No?

I believe reefing is the term used to control the inflation loads but probably one of the highest loads is the shock load from the tractor rocket carrying the deployment bag away at a high velocity.

later

8

FOR A Photo + News Story covering the Primary and Advanced Training required to qualify as Captain of Cirrus’ SR-20… Click on: http://

www.flightdata.com/graphics/avphotos/3-1.jpg

9

In case you haven’t read their Safety Review Finding, under the freedom of information act it is available. It lists the key effects of the chute where accidents traditionally occur with the highest rate. Here are some highlights:

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

Chris, at the risk of trying to beat a dead horse, I’d like to add a few comments indirectly from a reliable source at CD.

  1. The Cirrus is very difficult to get into a spin. In fact, the pilot has to work at it.

  2. Recovering from a spin is conventional.

  3. The company, although not required to, did perform a limited number of spin tests.

  4. You are absolutely correct, the aircraft is not certified for spins and the only ‘Approved’ method to recover is to pull the chute.

Since most, if not all, of us have flown in planes that are not approved for spins and certainaly are not spin proof, this seems to be very reassuring - The SR20 is docile with respect to spins and it is possible, without great effort, to get out of one.
If you’re looking for the perfectly safe, pilotproof plane: good luck. I’d recommend that you stay at home, but I hear the bathroom is a very dangerous place :wink: .

10

HEY GUYS LETS TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THE WIFE THINKS THE CHUTE SAVES EVERYTHING INCLUDING SPILLED DRINKS AND STAINS ON THE CARPET, IF SHE READS THIS I WILL BE KNEE DEEP IN CHUTE!..ED

11

chute Vne is only 135kts.

From the POH:

The maximum speed at which deployment has been demonstrated is 135 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 the 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.

BTW Chris (if that’s your real name), I notice you posted your message from Bend, Oregon. Who do you work for?? Does this mean that another aircraft company is researching ballistic chutes??

Touché!

12

chute Vne is only 135kts.

From the POH:

The maximum speed at which deployment has been demonstrated is 135 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 the 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.

BTW Chris (if that’s your real name), I notice you posted your message from Bend, Oregon. Who do you work for?? Does this mean that another aircraft company is researching ballistic chutes??

Interesting.

13

In case you haven’t read their Safety Review Finding, under the freedom of information act it is available. It lists the key effects of the chute where accidents traditionally occur with the highest rate. Here are some highlights:

Takeoff – gust, stall; won’t recover with chute,
Takeoff – crosswind turn; may recover with chute,
Take off – excessive nose up trim, stall; won’t recover with chute, Turning base to final; may recover with chute, Landing – gust stall; won’t recover with chute, Maneuvering – low; may recover with chute, Go around – excessive nose up trim /stall; may recover with chute. And for all those cruising midairs - chute Vne is only 135kts.

Eek, be careful folks!

From much earlier conversations with CD about the chute operating airspeeds, they said that the chute has a retaining/constricting ring (not the technical term) which restricts the full opening of the chute until slower speeds are reached.

This works by the ring initially upon chute deployment staying about 1/2 way up the risers. In this location it holds the risers together and restricts the chute from openning fully. As the airspeed slows and thus prressure on the ring reduces, the ring slides downwards towards the plane & the chute fully opens.

For the older among us, you may recall the Apollo space capsules’ parachute descents. The three parachutes opened into a small chute, then, somehow opened fully thereafter. This is essentially the same mechanism on the SR20 chute.

What this does is lower the opening shock/jolt when the chute opens. If it were to fully open at higher airspeeds, the pilot/passengers could be hurt (but I won’t dwell on that), but opening at higher speeds hasn’t been tested. Since the constricting ring has not back-up system, redundancy or failure mode, it is placarded for lower speeds. If you deploy the chute at say 170 kts and the ring works, and it is designed to, then all is fine.

Now I ask you, if you get in a midair in the pattern (or elsewhere) or you have a structural failure with an airspeed of 155 kts, what other choices do you have? Would you rather have an SR20 with a chute or almost any other plane without? It may not be a guarantee, but it is a choice and a chance.

IMHO (I finally figured out what that means!) I’ll take the choice.

A mid-air is incredibly remote, less than 1/2of 1% of accidents, also riddled with even more “what if’s” like nature of damage, damage to what part of plane, damage to pilot, pilots ability to make a rational decision in an instant, remove a cover and pull a handle . . . I wouldn’t expect much in the way of results. Parachutes became popular when airframes were failing left and right (the ultralights, where BRS got it start). Beyond that, it seems they are a hindrance and might even cause more accidents than they prevent. Time will of course tell all but I’ll take the payload and forget the chute unless I’m flying an ultralight with questionable airframe integrity.

14

it seems they are a hindrance and might even cause more accidents than they prevent.

Chris, how about declaring your position here. Even if you don’t want to reveal your name, how about telling us what your connection with Lancair is. It just seems like too much of a coincidence that you come from Bend, Oregon, and your views echo Lance Neibauer’s well-known prejudices on parachutes.

You’re entitled to your opinions, and to express them, but why not let us know what deck you’re dealing from.

15

it seems they are a hindrance and might even cause more accidents than they prevent.

Chris, how about declaring your position here. Even if you don’t want to reveal your name, how about telling us what your connection with Lancair is. It just seems like too much of a coincidence that you come from Bend, Oregon, and your views echo Lance Neibauer’s well-known prejudices on parachutes.

You’re entitled to your opinions, and to express them, but why not let us know what deck you’re dealing from.

No card decks here and I don’t make airplanes. being in their back yard is always interesting though. I don’t own either one, don’t have a deposit on either one. But their points on the chute do make sense. Seems it has been a good sales tool though.

16

No card decks here and I don’t make airplanes. being in their back yard is always interesting though. I don’t own either one, don’t have a deposit on either one. But their points on the chute do make sense. Seems it has been a good sales tool though.

Chris: You make some very good points. First, mid-airs are remote, even in the pattern of a crowded training airport, but they happen. Many/ most of the causes of crashes and fatalities in GA aircraft are totally preventable. I like to believe that I won’t put myself in those situations and thereby remove over 50% of the causes of crashes. But I am human. The two biggest causes of accidents seem to be fuel starvation and continuing VFR into IMC, and these should almost never happen, but if they do, isn’t nice to have another way out at night or over inhospitable terrain?

The chute was not a big factor for me, and I suspect most pilots agree. I think we’re predisposed to believe in our talents and skill and not want to loose the plane or admit that we can’t get out of the situation. If I had a choice of with or without and 50 - 70 extra pounds, that would be a tough choice.

Now, for passengers (& wives), I think it is a different story. I never pressure anyone to fly with me, but since it’s become known that the new plane will have the chute, they have volunteered to fly. I don’t agree, but I won’t fight it either.

I’ve already given a lot of thought to exactly when I will pull it, and when I’ve finally though it through completely, I expect to stick to my criteria. Quite frankly, if I’m over deep water & the engine dies and won’t restart, I’ll pull the chute every time instead of ditching. Engine dies over sparsely populated plains: save the chute & land for sure. It’s nice to have another option.

17

The chute was not a big factor for me, and I suspect most pilots agree. I think we’re predisposed to believe in our talents and skill and not want to loose the plane or admit that we can’t get out of the situation. If I had a choice of with or without and 50 - 70 extra pounds, that would be a tough choice.

Now, for passengers (& wives), I think it is a different story. I never pressure anyone to fly with me, but since it’s become known that the new plane will have the chute, they have volunteered to fly. I don’t agree, but I won’t fight it either.

I currently have a 172 on a leaseback, and my wife has flown wife me once. She isn’t unhappy with my flying and really enjoyed our one trip. But, she’s not into airplanes and since the arrival of our son isn’t ready to go up too soon. I told here about the Cirrus awhile back and the fact that it had a chute. Since that time she’s been very supportive of us purchasing a family plane when the little guy is a bit older. If it allows me to fly my family it’s worth the 70 lbs.

Plus as a pilot I agree there will be specific times when it will save someone.

18

Has anyone heard anything about deploying a chute over water? Cirrus says that the landing gear will absorb most of the impact in a chute landing, but clearly that applies to land, not water. I wonder how hard a water impact would be, and how long it would float? Also, I’ve never flown a seaplane, but I wonder if a seaplane pilot would prefer a chute descent to a dead stick ditching? (Here’s another area where training would add a lot to safety.)

There are a lot of unknowns, but I still applaud Cirrus for making the chute standard equipment. Every safety advance carries some cost and risk, and it’s easy for some folks to lose site of the balance. In my sailing days I knew some people who refused to carry long distance radios, saying that the ability to call for help would only encourage poor seamanship.

19

Also, I’ve never flown a seaplane, but I wonder if a seaplane pilot would prefer a chute descent to a dead stick ditching?
I have flown seaplanes, and I think the deadstick scenario there is very similar to a power-loss over land. That is: if you can control the descent, and see where you’re going, then gliding in for a dead-stick landing is obviously the preferable choice. In the pontooon-equipped 172s I’ve flown, you just trim it for 60 or 65kts and glide it in. And on the typical lake or bay it’s a lot easier to find a suitable landing field than over land. But if you can’t get out of a spin, or you don’t know where you are, or it’s night, or there’s a mountain right next to the water, then a chute would be a nice extra alternative to have.

20

Has anyone heard anything about deploying a chute over water? Cirrus says that the landing gear will absorb most of the impact in a chute landing, but clearly that applies to land, not water. I wonder how hard a water impact would be, and how long it would float? Also, I’ve never flown a seaplane, but I wonder if a seaplane pilot would prefer a chute descent to a dead stick ditching? (Here’s another area where training would add a lot to safety.)

My understanding is that the issue w/ ditching is that a chute descent would generally be preferable to ditching a fixed gear aircraft, as far as insuring that the craft remains upright and provides the maximum opportunity for escape.

BTW, don’t expect a rational discussion on the merits with Chris…