Lose the chute, increase the safety

Guest Discussion
1

In the vein of pissing people off on this board by suggesting the Cirrus isn’t infallible, I would suggest that Cirrus could make the airplane four times as safe by doing one simple thing: getting rid of the parachute.

I predict that the Cirrus will become the next “Doctor Killer” (taking the dubious mantle from the Bonanza) because of its image as a simple, safe aircraft that anybody can fly and that will always give you a way out due to the parachute.

The psychology of the chute is horrible. It probably gives many pilots the notion that their actions are not as important because they are always operating with a backup. In reality, if you spin the airplane, are you going to have the mind to pull the chute?

What about the reliability of a circular chute in gusty conditions? With all the talk about “statistical significance” on this board, how many times did Cirrus really “pop the chute?”

I’d much rather put my faith in an airframe that is fundamentally hard to spin and forgiving to handle (e.g. C182) than in a complicated arrangement of cable, solid rocket fuel and silk.

Finally, getting rid of the chute will get rid of a lot of the people who are waiting for a Cirrus because they think (incorrectly) it’s a realiable form of transportation and not an avocation requiring intense practice and knowledge. If anything, the CIrrus is a less reliable machine than the venerable (and well tested) Cessna, but at best it’s still your average GA aircraft, with equipment that’s hamstrung by lack of volume, liability insurance and the government. It’s an adventure, not a car, and I seriously doubt that many of the people on the waiting list for one have the time or inclination to become the kind of pilots they need to be.

The worst thing Cirrus could have done for their airplane, in my opinion, is put the parachute on it. I think it’s distracted them from building a truly solid, reliable airplane, and it’s distracted pilots from being truly solid, reliable operators.

In the end, the CIrrus will probably backfire on the industry it was meant to save. I say this partly hoping that I will annoy people enough that it might not happen.

2

And while we’re at it, let’s everyone disable the airbags in our cars. And seatbelts too! If everyone would just drive safer then no one will ever get hurt.(I know I’m going to catch all hell for saying that…)It doesn’t seem to me that Cirrus is neglecting safety because they are choosing to put a chute on the plane. They’re a young company which is trying to make a difference. I commend them in how they’ve handled everything I’ve seen to date. They seem to be taking on all the very difficult issues with their planes and their customers head-on and forthrightly.My prediction is exactly the opposite of yours. When the first lives are saved by CAPS, then the third, then fifth, sixth and seventh… This is when GA will begin to change. This is the direction I see things heading.

3

I absolutely disagree w/ your opinion Birge. I for one am buying a Cirrus because it is light years ahead of your 70’s spam cam. I am buying a Cirrus because of:

         1. Speed
         2. Economy
         3. Comfort
         4. Modern Avionics

Heck, I could go on and on. But the bottom point is, the Cirrus is the BEST VALUE A/c you can buy. The parachute was in my opinion, just a BONUS.

Moreover, the success of Cirrus is evident in its strong sales performance. Meaning, an awful lot of pilots, low time and high time, believes in Cirrus’ philosophy. In due time, every a/c manufacturer who wants to survive will line up behind Cirrus’s strategy. Right now they’re just in denial…

4

You’re right, Birge. I’m selling my 22 position, buying a 182 for the same price, and I’m going to put the Firestones back on the Explorer, too.

Get real, Birge

5

Did the chute have any impact on my decision to place an order for an SR20 3 years ago? No. Never had one, never wanted one…and, like many others, asked if it was an “option” to be deleted. What made me plop down the deposit on a plane before Cirrus had delivered the first production 20? Everything about it! Speed, comfort, avionics, but, most of all: price! A new 160 kt airplane for less than 200,000 grand with the latest avionics? It was almost unbelievable- especially after the Mooney dealer tried to talk me out of the Cirrus in favor of a 2 year old "demo" ovation with 200 hrs. for 400,000 (probably could have bought it for 395 K) Now that I'm happily settled into my SR 22 (took the upgrade of course) after 6 months and 175 hrs, I can say that chute or no chute, nothing compares. I don't fly any differently in this plane than I did in my Skyhawk...same lousy weather occasionally but with much greater ease and situational awareness. I can't believe anyone would really believe that a parachute makes a pilot take chances he would'nt take without it. Does it sound like a good outcome to arrive vertically and trash your beautiful 300 k plane and scare the hell out yourself and your passengers because you believe “hey…if all else fails (including my common sense), I’ve got the chute”? Here’s where the chute plays into my thinking: my regular bahamas/mountain/night flying and low ifr flying may (I stress MAY) be a bit less risky in terms of the one thing I can’t control: engine failure. That’s it, engine failure in the aforementioned difficult conditions . I don’t for a minute believe that a mid-air will ever be a fender bender that would allow me to pull the chute or that I would be able to get out of a stupid trick like a low altitude stall/spin with the chute…but, just the chance that I might survive a verticle descent into hostile mountainous terrain or the gulf stream with 4 ft seas instead of a horizontal one at 70 kts makes me feel that the chute is a good thing…and, as soon as they make a Cirrus with a turbine, then you can throw away the chute (but, you probably wouldn’t!).

6

Your post will rank as the dumbest post of all time.

7

Jonathan,

Have you ever flown in a SR20 ? to really compare it with other
planes.

If you want I get my SR20 next week - as I live in Superior and
I note you are based in Boulder I will happily take you for a ride.
Or the FBO at Boulder airport has a Sr20 for rent at $120 an
hour. Just to show us Cirrus guys are kind hearted.

Robert

8

I have to say in all candor…I am truely puzzled why no one has pulled the chute…

in a perfect world there would be no accidents and
hopefully all will be well with everyone in all planes…but I am truely puzzeled why no one who has had any type of mishap has not pulled the chute…

I wish all aircraft had chutes…

9

I thought I mentioned it in my first post, but I was intentionally playing devils advocate. Some people got pretty annoyed, and I think some got defensive, so let me state a few things to be clear:

I really care about Cirrus, and I have nothing to benefit from them screwing up. I have had my heart set on an SR-20 probably before many of you had heard of Cirrus. I’ve been following them for years, hoping that they would be able to kickstart general aviation from it’s sorry current state.

So, you can imagine my frustration with the situation where the CIrrus just isn’t living up to it’s lofty expectations. I think it can get there, but I think both the company and the pilots need to get a better grip on reality. Unfortunately, when I made my statements about Cirrus pilots being blinded by the chute, it was dumb of me to make them here without prefacing them with the observation that a group of people who spend their time talking about planes are absolutely not the kind of pilots I believe to be a problem. I felt that was implied in the fact that I’m bothering to mention my views here, but reading the whole thread I can understand how that wasn’t remotely obvious.

At any rate, I will say that I think my points, however clumsily made, are worth considering. It does the discussion no good to trot out rejoinders about level of confidence in my “facts.” I’m not trying a federal case here. I’m trying to start a discussion. When people argue they state their opinions as facts. Nobody spends their time qualifying every last remark. So, let me just disclaim that so that the nitpicking can stop.

So, back to the argument: Assuming the accident in NY was a spin, my point about a 182 not doing the same thing was not that 182 won’t spin, but that it will almost never stay in one when loaded remotely properly. Every airplane will kill you when you stall/spin it close to the ground, and as one poster pointed out, the 182 is no exception. My point is that when an airplane spins in from altitude, as the SR-20 apparently did, it’s not a good thing.

If you’ve never seen a spin, it will freak the hell out of you and you WILL do the wrong thing the first time (at least). You won’t think about the chute, you won’t remember the verbal instructions your CFI gave you. In the aforementioned 182, there are two big things keeping you from killing yourself in a stall gone bad: (1) you’re scared to death of spinning because you know it will be up to you to fix and (2) ironically enough, if you do spin it, it will come out eventually without you doing anything. It looks like the Cirrus might be missing both points to some pilots. There is a grave disconnect starting to appear between the theory of the Cirrus and the reality.

The bottom line is that four people are dead in an airplane with less than 1000 units out. There are tens of thousands of 172s out there, and I would imagine there have been a similar number of fatalities in the comensurate period of time. Even if both turn out to be gross pilot error, that’s not going to help the situation. GA is full of people who ignore the problem by claiming to be better pilots, but the notion that the doctor in NY probably killed himself from hubris is of no comfort to his widow.

I’d like to be able to take people flying without having to lecture them on the subtle ways in which the statistics don’t really accurately predict their chance of dying on our little dinner flight. I’d hoped the Cirrus would put us a step in the right direction, but it’s not looking like it’s going to happen that easily. I think what’s going to save GA is safe airplanes, not fast ones, and I do think Cirrus is right for focusing on safety. I’d just like to figure out why it’s proving to be so difficult.

10

I have been following the Cirrus discussion since the earliest days of sr20.org. This might be the best thread ever. Thanks Jonathan for your courage to advocate safety - even at the risk of provoking an emotional response from the Church of Cirrus. To those who have returned thoughtful responses, well done. Many safe hours. To those of you who misunderstood and flamed Mr. Birge, good luck. the chute handle is somewhere over your head. Pull hard.There is no substitute for a safety-oriented attitude and a lot of training. If you assume your plane is dangerous and prepare for the worst, you’ll probably be fine. If you assume it is a modern miracle and depend on the chute for your safety, have fun while it lasts…There is no substitute for top notch flying skills.Steve

11

Well said! The parachute did not influence my decision to buy the Cirrus, but I’m glad it’s there.

Walt N224AZ

12

And while we’re at it, let’s everyone disable the airbags in our cars. And seatbelts too! If everyone would just drive safer then no one will ever get hurt.(I know I’m going to catch all hell for saying that…)It doesn’t seem to me that Cirrus is neglecting safety because they are choosing to put a chute on the plane. They’re a young company which is trying to make a difference. I commend them in how they’ve handled everything I’ve seen to date. They seem to be taking on all the very difficult issues with their planes and their customers head-on and forthrightly.My prediction is exactly the opposite of yours. When the first lives are saved by CAPS, then the third, then fifth, sixth and seventh… This is when GA will begin to change. This is the direction I see things heading.

The problem is, before the first CAPS save, we’ll probably get a few more deaths (or near deaths) that SHOULD’VE have been prevented by the CAPS. And I imagine there will be more, along with at least one episode where the chute doesn’t deploy correctly or something.

What worries me about the chute is that it’s more complicated than an airbag, and yet has been tested less. Plus, and airbag isn’t meant to overcome handling deficiencies in a car, and yet the CAPS is a required item because the airplane hasn’t been spin certified. I know people think the Cirrus is a docile airplane, but all the anecdotal evidence from the NY crash suggests the plane entered a flat spin. A well designed light airplane flown within limits should be nearly impossible to get into a flat spin, period. And with enough altitude an airplane can be designed such that it’s very difficult to KEEP it in a spin. The fact that there has already been a death due to a spin in a Cirrus put into serious question the safety features of the airplane. I guarantee you that the crash in NY would not have happened if the owners had purchased a 182.

At any rate, I see two major possibilities for the crash:

  1. They got into a spin, tried to pull the chute but it didn’t work.

  2. They got into a spin, and were too freaked out to think straight enough to pull the chute.

Either one is pretty damning for the idea of a panic button that is so complicated. As I said, wouldn’t you rather have an airframe that was more forgiving that an airplane that can be easily spun and requires you to launch a rocket powered round parachute to save your life?

13

I would have to go back and read Unsafe at Any Speed (Nader’s book) but if I’m not mistaken, the auto industry was making very similar arguments against airbags in the early 70’s. Not just was it cost prohibitive (in their opinions) but it would cause drivers to be way over confident and not drive as safely. I personally don’t think those arguements bore out. Now I wouldn’t drive a car today that didn’t have airbags. I honestly expect I will feel the same about planes with chutes 10 years from now.It’s certainly a hot button topic, isn’t it.

14

And while we’re at it, let’s everyone disable the airbags in our cars. And seatbelts too! If everyone would just drive safer then no one will ever get hurt.(I know I’m going to catch all hell for saying that…)

Actually, that’s an interesting point. The reality is that after seatbelts were added to cars, the fatality rate stayed about the same. The accident rate went up because people become more confident and took more risks. It’s a well documented phenomenon. I think the same thing happens in airplane, whether its the CAPS or known icing equipment or two engines.

-Jonathan

15

< The parachute did not influence my decision to buy the Cirrus, but I’m glad it’s there.

What makes you think it will work. It has never been successfully deployed in an accident. In fact 3 of the last 4 initial attempts to deploy failed. Cirrus has stated that they are working on the problem and a new deployment design is coming, but it is not here yet.

16

Whenever I flew my old 79 Warrior II, I never thought to myself…If only this plane had a parachute, I would feel much safer. That’s what I meant in my first part of the statement that it did not influence my decision.

I’m confident that Cirrus will work out the bugs in the cable system.

Walt N224AZ

17

I absolutely disagree w/ your opinion Birge. I for one am buying a Cirrus because it is light years ahead of your 70’s spam cam. I am buying a Cirrus because of:

  1. Speed
  2. Economy
  3. Comfort
  4. Modern Avionics

I agree that the Cirrus is excellent on all those points. Unfortunately, I believe for many people buying a Cirrus, the number 1 reason (or at least one of the top) would be “parachute to save my butt.”

18

I’m confident that Cirrus will work out the bugs in the cable system.

So am I. But in the meantime, based upon the POH (Cirrus used the assumption of a working parachute to avoid spin testing), you do not have a reliable means of spin recovery. I don’t understand why the FAA has not grounded the entire fleet until the problems are worked out.

19

Birge: A very good topic and one that has been discussed in the forums (and SR20.org site before this) for some time. Clearly, not all with agree with Cirrus’s philosophy nor should they. If everyone agreed on everything, we’d all wear the dsame clothes, live in identical houses, buy identical cars, and these forums would be really boring.
However, there are some holes in the facts that you base your argument on and perhaps even some flaws in the logic. As far as I know the following is true:
First, the BRSI parachute system does have well over 100 ‘saves’. Yes, the Cirrus installation has none, but that makes it 0 for 1 (known). Lets go with the more meaningful statistics.
As for the Cirrus system, The ‘fix’ is already installed in the ‘newer’ aircraft. The ‘older’ aircraft with the SB’s accomplished work, it will have harder pull forces, but it works. The first 14 or 18 may have an additional issue with the bracket. (Art, if you know any other facts, please inform us. If you are just going to post the products of your imagination just because no one has demonstrated to your satisfaction that your guesses are not true, please spare us.)

Did I buy the Cirrus for the 'chute? No, but it is nice to have just one more way out. Do I look at it as a guarantee? No, nothing except eventual reacquaintance with the ground is guaranteed in aviation. Is there a negative here? Maybe the loss of 50 or 70 lbs. of useful load as you pointed out is a negative, but otherwise no, there are no negatives.

Just because a glass is only half full does not mean that you will be die of thirst.

Marty

20

I don’t understand why the FAA has not grounded the entire fleet until the problems are worked out.

Now, Art, if you truly believed that all Cirri should be grounded, you wouldn’t let your Cirrus leave the ground… and yet we have it click hereon good authority that less than a week ago, you and your partner gave Jim Fallows a ride in your airplane! Was that a safe trip, or was it not? Inquiring minds would love to know.