Would you trust the Cirrus SR-22 parachute?

[nigelb]

Crash yesterday - the pilot walked away!

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0309/603977.html

Nigel²

[Prop Jockey]

Absolutely

They don't do too badly when the chute isn't pulled too



The aircraft went around after a balked landing which included a prop strike. I believe it ended up here because the flaps were raised on the go-around. Both occupants 'wandered' away from this requiring little more than a stiff drink to sort them out.

The downside however, is if you don't pull the chute, you're left with a bent aircraft that contains an unexploded bomb courtesy of the rocket used to deploy it. Cirrus in the US were insisting that someone from the US had to be flown over to the UK to diffuse poor old Alpha Alpha - thankfully after some negotiation, they conceeded that someone from the UK maintenance organisation could do it and AA was 'made safe' the same day as the incident.

Cheers

Rich

[cstorey]

They do seem a bit fragile . I see that G-TAAA was a write off

[nigelb]

N213CP is apparently a write off also. It landed on a tree lined street and the tail was snapped off by a branch, while a parked truck broke one of the wings. However, the pilot is fine, According to a Cirrus spokesman, there have been 17 parachute pulls and he claims that 34 lives were saved a a result.

Nigel²

[SkippyBing]

They do seem a bit fragile . I see that G-TAAA was a write off

That's composites and designing a crumple zone to protect the occupants, I'd certainly prefer that to massive injury/death but a reusable plane!

[cstorey]

You most certainly do NOT require a crumple zone in a single engined light aircraft. The one reason that crashes in singles are, broadly speaking, more survivable than in twins is that there is a lovely lump of iron in front which ploughs through things and does not come back and end in your lap . Better, of course, to avoid the accident in the first place

[SkippyBing]

Crumple zones don't have to be in front of you, rather I meant the airframe is designed to absorb the shock of the impact, destroying itself in the process, much like a crash helmet. They have crumple zones in cars and the engines don't end up in your lap either.

[cstorey]

Ah, yes, I see your point. I still wouldn't rush out for one, however, as the accident rate seems unenviably high. Hard to see why, but I think Propjockey used to fly one so maybe he will tell us about their characteristics

[SkippyBing]

I wonder if the accident rate is partly a psychological thing, similar to the introduction of mandatory seatbelt wearing where the perceived extra safety, in this case provided by the parachute, leads the operator to take more risks?

[Prop Jockey]

Yes I haven't looked at the ins and outs of all the Cirrus mishaps but I've seen examples of 'over confidence' in the aircraft. I still fly them - and don't get me wrong - they are simply fantastic pieces of kit. Easy to fly and no real vices. They are however a world away from the Pipers and Cessnas that most folks are leaving behind when they move onto a Cirrus. The full axis autopilot which now also includes vertical nav features has to be mastered and monitored. Its all too easy to let the plane fly the flight plan in the GPS's whilst you sit back enjoy the view and listen to your iPod through the aircrafts audio system. Its too easy relying on the automatics to get you from A to B. I flew with a pilot who wasn't IMC rated and as we approached the Isle Of Wight we entered cloud. There was no attempt to disengage the autopilot and descend to maintain VMC. The autopilot was flying, we had traffic awareness on the MFD - so what was the problem ? I do have an IMC, but I'm sure he'd have done the same if I wasn't there. He was illegal, over-reliant on the traffic awareness (which can fail, and only picks up aircraft with transponders anyway), and if the autopilot failed he'd be IMC without practice and in danger of likely having to recover from an unusual attitude, on instruments, again without practice.

I know a guy who busted the Luton zone because the autopilot merrily followed a flight plan that had an incorrect waypoint - there was no cross-checking of position against a map. I heard a similar story about a Heathrow airspace bust for exactly the same reason. I've had instances of autopilot failure where altitude capture doesn't engage and the aircraft continues to climb/descend through the desired level at the specified rate. I've had the traffic system fail. I've had the lightning sensor fail. I've had the % Power under-read (initially pilots were taught to manage the engine by % power, thesedays its manifold pressure as thats how its done on the turbo aircraft - it makes moving onto the turbo aircraft later a bit more simplistic). The PFD has failed in our old aircraft as did one of the Garmin 430s. Additionally I had an instance of the Garmin not switching to the ILS inbound course and continueing to show a back course even the aircraft was 'in front' of the ILS.

Now I'm listing everything that I've seen go wrong, which may make you think they're unreliable, but no more so than any other type of aircraft. Its the over confidence with the new technology and possibly letting your guard down, trusting this wonderful technology will work in harmony every flight that I think can bite you if its your unlucky day. There is probably such a high incidence of accidents because there are more Cirrus's with this type of technology than any other piston single. There's more equipment on a Cirrus - so that means more things to monitor. Unfortunately I think over confidence in the systems can lead to less monitoring.

They're just like any other aircraft - if you use it wrong - it'll end in tears. If you use it right - they're a great way to get about

Have a look at 'Crashworthiness' here if you're interested in load tolerances the cabin has to withstand.

Cheers

Rich