"The system protects pilots by taking temporary command of the aircraft and executing an automatic recovery maneuver "

This is exactly what I've been preaching here for years. Prop twin pilots need this.

Eclipse: 0 fatals
Mustang: 0 fatals
Phenom 100: 1 fatal (chute useless).

That's about 1,000 delivered aircraft over several years, around a million flight hours, and not a single case the chute would have made a difference.

If a whole bunch of SF50s end up chuting to the ground, then we have to question why Cirrus builds an airplane that needs it so much while others don't.

The belief in the chute is another example of inappropriate piston experience transferred to jets.

Mike C.

Eclipse: 0 fatals
Mustang: 0 fatals
Phenom 100: 1 fatal (chute useless).

That's about 1,000 delivered aircraft over several years, around a million flight hours, and not a single case the chute would have made a difference.

If a whole bunch of SF50s end up chuting to the ground, then we have to question why Cirrus builds an airplane that needs it so much while others don't.

The belief in the chute is another example of inappropriate piston experience transferred to jets.

Mike C.

The Airbus has that type of automatic recovery system and look at the issues it has had in the past.

If the system is working as planned, it’s a great system, but if the computer gets an incorrect input, the computer tries to overcorrect and the pilot ends up fighting the computer for control.

"The system protects pilots by taking temporary command of the aircraft and executing an automatic recovery maneuver "

This is exactly what I've been preaching here for years. Prop twin pilots need this.

Example? When has an airbus pilot had to fight normal primary control law? Not claiming it never happened, just wondering.

A chute doesn't solve CFIT in any case.

Mike C.

Exactly.

The chute exists on the SR series to compensate for poorly trained or deficient piston pilots.

That will be dramatically less of an issue on the jet due to type rating and annual checks.

In the end, the SR series accident rate improved not because there was a chute, but because there was a more significant training effort.

The number one safety improving strategy is training. Always has been, always will be.

Mike C.

Example? When has an airbus pilot had to fight normal primary control law? Not claiming it never happened, just wondering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

Pilots pushed power levers to full power, plane decided they didn't need it and didn't give it to them. Normal law, no faults.

Inexperienced Airbus pilot: "What the heck is it doing?"

Experienced Airbus pilot: "Oh, it's doing THAT again"

Mike C.

Here is two reports:
Airbus A320 that crashed at Habsheim, Alsace, France on June 26th 1988

Air France Flight 447 Airbus A330-200 June 1 2009 -due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals causing the autopilot to disconnect.[/quote]

Well,

You cannot claim flight 447 crash was due to normal control law. It was not under normal control law. Envelope protection was turned off, correctly, by the computer and the pilots wrecked it.

As to the other crash mentioned, low pass in A320, once again, the primary control law did not cause the crash. They were doomed one way or another, the speed was too low to command the angle of attack desired by the pilot so they would have stalled and spun it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

Pilots pushed power levers to full power, plane decided they didn't need it and didn't give it to them. Normal law, no faults.

Inexperienced Airbus pilot: "What the heck is it doing?"

Experienced Airbus pilot: "Oh, it's doing THAT again"

Mike C.

Aircraft and engines[edit]
The investigators found the aircraft to have been airworthy, that its weight and center-of-gravity had been within limits, and that there was no evidence of mechanical or electronic systems failure.

The flight deck crew believed that the engines had failed to respond to the application of full power.

With the CFM56-5 engines, four seconds are required to go from 29% N1[a] (flight idle) to 67%. It then takes one second more to go from 67 to 83% N1. From the engine parameters recorded on the DFDR and spectral analysis of the engine sounds on the CVR, it was determined that five seconds after TOGA power was applied, the N1 speed of Nº1 engine was 83% while that of Nº2 engine was 84%. Spectral analysis of the engine sounds indicated that 0.6 seconds later, both engines had reached 91% (by this stage, they were starting to ingest vegetation). This response of the engines complied with their certification data.[2]

Maybe the chute will only be required for the first 50 or so hours, while the piston pilot gets up to speed?

Over 50% of GA accidents are in the approach/landing phase. By the time the pilot accepted the fact that they were in trouble, it would be too late to use the chute. 20% of GA accidents are in the takeoff phase, the chute won't be helping here.

The chute will really be marginalized with the SF50. Marginalized to where it should only be used when the pilot is incapacitated. If there are many chute pulls like the SR series, sales guys, underwriters and training facilities will be hung.

It also states the pass was supposed to have been performed at 100 feet than 30 feet...