banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 06:12 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394 ... 512  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 14:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14524
Post Likes: +22857
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Username Protected wrote:
That is its greatest weakness, comforting pilots into risk they would not otherwise take without the chute.

Mike C.

you are stating an emotional response. The same emotions ran wild among "real pilots" about the piston airplane with the chute, yet it has a safety record that puts everyone else to shame.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/09
Posts: 5233
Post Likes: +3026
Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
Username Protected wrote:
I'd tend to agree, but what about pilot incapacitation? I'm pretty sure the autopilot doesn't include autoland.

History with the SR series shows this is exceedingly rare to non existent. I don't believe there has been a single case where a passenger has initiated a chute pull. There has been one case where a passenger pulled the handle, but that was at the direction of the pilot.

We have plenty of examples of pilots not pulling the chute when they should, so why would we expect a passenger can handle that task properly?

But, all that being said, that is one case you can come up with for a fully functional and under control airplane to be "saved" by the chute. Pilot incapacitation is exceedingly rare, so much so that there may never be a case of it in the entire operational history of the SF50.

Mike C.


SR departing KHPN , pilot blacked out, came to and realized he had a problem and pulled the chute. Landed in a lake near the airport. Turned out the pilot had a brain tumor. Clear case of pilot incapacitation with a chute save.
_________________
Allen


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:29 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
you are stating an emotional response. The same emotions ran wild among "real pilots" about the piston airplane with the chute, yet it has a safety record that puts everyone else to shame.

Your views reflect the perception Cirrus marketing wants to create and not reality.

The Cirrus fatal accident rate is mediocre. It pretty bad at the beginning, much worse than average. It has improved recently with more training which specifically focuses on pilot behavior, but still not stellar. The number of accidents has been increasing lately, however. Already 8 SR fatal accidents this year, so some of that training program is beginning to wear off.

By year per NTSB, SR fatal accidents:

2017 (to date): 8
2016: 7
2015: 5
2014: 3
2013: 8
2012: 10
2011: 16

Can you guess when the new SR training program started? Late 2012, early 2013. Had a beneficial impact as all training programs do. But alas, it may have worn off to some extent.

Also note there has been only ONE CAPS activation this year. If we count that as 9 total "fatal situations", the chute was used in 11% of them. That's not much of an impact.

When you compare the SR series to, say, Columbia/Corvalis, the SR series is more deadly despite the Columbia/Corvalis having no chute and no special pilot training program.

Take away: provide chute, more accidents; provide training, less accidents.

There's nothing wrong with the SR airplane. It is intrinsically no more dangerous than a Columbia/Corvalis. Yet, pilots seem to end up dead more often, and that's not counting the supposed "saves" from chute pulls, what one might call a fatal accident averted.

Why do Cirrus pilots end up in fatal situations so often?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14524
Post Likes: +22857
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Username Protected wrote:
Why do Cirrus pilots end up in fatal situations so often?

Mike C.

more often that a columbia pilot? because there are so many more of them flying to many more hours. i will wager that cirri fly more hours ina year than the rest of the travelling-class piston fleet combined. naturally they are going to have more accidents. in other words, the polar opposite of the MU2. Very few planes having lots of accidents.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:

SR departing KHPN , pilot blacked out, came to and realized he had a problem and pulled the chute. Landed in a lake near the airport. Turned out the pilot had a brain tumor. Clear case of pilot incapacitation with a chute save.


As I recall his explanation on COPA, he came to in a spiral dive and, not knowing what had happened when he blacked out, decided to pull the chute as a precaution. Not unreasonable, but he probably could have landed.

And without the gear cushion, he had vertebral fractures from landing on water.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
The chute is a great marketing gimmick .


Hard to call something a gimmick, that by looking at sales, new airplane buyers clearly favor by a large margin. Cirrus has trounced all other piston aircraft mfrs combined for private sales for going on 15 years.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Why do Cirrus pilots end up in fatal situations so often?

Mike C.

more often that a columbia pilot? because there are so many more of them flying to many more hours. i will wager that cirri fly more hours ina year than the rest of the travelling-class piston fleet combined. naturally they are going to have more accidents. in other words, the polar opposite of the MU2. Very few planes having lots of accidents.

Flying right now:
44 SR22
3 SF50
2 MU2
0 Columbia

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
That’s hilarious JC!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/25/15
Posts: 218
Post Likes: +191
Username Protected wrote:

Flying right now:
44 SR22
3 SF50
2 MU2
0 Columbia


So obviously 44 Cirrus pilots trying to find opportunities to have a fatal accident, but Columbia pilots are smarter and decided to stay on the ground!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 15:55 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/19/12
Posts: 4061
Post Likes: +1786
Location: Belton, TX (KTPL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
Username Protected wrote:
Flying right now:
44 SR22
3 SF50
2 MU2
0 Columbia

From my look on flightaware just now. We all need to buy 737-800's. They are the popular plane flying in the air.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 16:55 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6842
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
They did some chute test, but we only have a few seconds showing only a part of it.

I am pretty sure they did not do a chute flight test in a way that would have satisfied the FAA certification requirements outside the SC.

I am pretty sure they did not do the test to ground impact.

I am pretty sure the first customer use of the chute will be the first end to end test of the system to the ground.


So you went from "they didn't test the chute" to "they tested it, but I think their test is inadequate". In other words, when the original argument doesn't work out, change the argument. ;)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 17:38 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
SR departing KHPN , pilot blacked out, came to and realized he had a problem and pulled the chute. Landed in a lake near the airport. Turned out the pilot had a brain tumor. Clear case of pilot incapacitation with a chute save.

It doesn't seem to be a "clear case".

From the NTSB database:

According to the pilot, the airplane was in cruise flight at 3,000 feet, when the pilot suffered a seizure and lost consciousness. When the pilot awakened, the airplane was in a high speed descent. In addition, the pilot felt disoriented, and numbness in his right leg. The airplane was equipped with a Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS). The pilot recovered from the descent at an altitude of about 1,700 feet; and elected to deploy the CAPS system. The airplane
descended via the parachute, and impacted in a river. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the underside of the composite fuselage. The pilot sustained a fractured vertebra and was able to egress from the airplane before it sank. Subsequent medical examinations on the pilot revealed the presence of a brain tumor.


The pilot recovered from the dive, then ELECTED to deploy the chute. This shows the ability to control the plane, and make decisions, and he stood a decent chance of being able to land the plane safely, potentially without the injuries he suffered in the chute "landing" which fractured vertebra and subjected him to a real risk of drowning.

The pilot, while under chute, used engine power to try and steer the plane away from a fuel farm, so he was actively "flying" the plane even while under chute, showing significant capacity to handle the airplane. He was far from incapacitated during this part of the flight.

In any case, this is not a sure fatal accident averted IMO.

In the pilot's own words:

I looked out the window and saw that the plane was descending directly over a fuel tank farm
...
This was now the scariest part of the flight: worse than emerging from a seizure to find the plane in a high-speed descent, because I already knew from training how to handle that situation. But there is no advice in the POH on how to control the plane once the parachute has been deployed.
...
I then used “all available resources” to change that outcome: I applied right aileron and rudder, and rocked the power lever to make sure that the engine still had power. These actions caused the plane to gently veer away from the tank farm and over the water
...
An instant later the plane crashed straight down into the water, which both then and now I consider to be the lesser of two evils. It was like a massive belly flop. This was now the second, scary part of the flight, as water splashed up almost to the top of the windows. Because I landed in water rather than solid ground, the gear did not absorb much of the impact. Instead, the wings and seat did all the work. It was at this point that the fourth lumbar vertebrae in my back cracked and compressed from the impact of the crash.
..
Then came the very worst part: I could not open the door. The wings were now sitting right at water level, which leads me to theorize that the doorframe or pins were deformed by the impact of the crash. And upon impact, water immediately came into the cabin; in the three seconds it took me to realize that the door wasn’t going to open, the water level was up to my ankles. More adrenaline shot through my body. I reached for the hammer in the armrest compartment, and with two hands swung at the pilot’s window. Two whacks with all my strength and there was an eight inch hole. Steam was now coming out of the engine as the nosecone dipped underwater and the cabin tilted forward, so I now remembered to shut down all the switches and turn the fuel selector to off. I ripped the lap board off my leg, reached behind my seat and grabbed one of the two life jackets that’s always there. I then clawed apart most of the rest of the window glass (which gave me some cuts and splinters) until the hole was big enough, and climbed out of the cabin. The wings were now slightly under water; I sat down to put on and inflate the lifejacket.


Almost into a fuel farm, broke his back, almost drowned. Not clear flying the plane to a landing wouldn't have been better and the pilot appears to have had enough ability to have done that given the things he did during the sequence following the seizure.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 17:39 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
more often that a columbia pilot? because there are so many more of them flying to many more hours.

Jeff, the Cirrus pilots do it at a larger RATE, which accounts for hours.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 18:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14524
Post Likes: +22857
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Username Protected wrote:
more often that a columbia pilot? because there are so many more of them flying to many more hours.

Jeff, the Cirrus pilots do it at a larger RATE, which accounts for hours.

Mike C.

not that I can see. there are no real records of hours flown so we can only go by our own observations. I see cirri flying far more than legacy aluminum models

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50
PostPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 18:03 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus has trounced all other piston aircraft mfrs combined for private sales for going on 15 years.

Go look at GAMA records.

Textron has sold more piston singles in some years than Cirrus. 2015 is an example year where this has occurred (301 for Cirrus, 312 for Textron).

If we look at the 2016 GAMA databook for 2003-2016, 14 years (so almost your 15 year period), sales of piston singles were:

Cirrus: 5,842 piston singles
Textron: 7,726 piston singles

Cirrus is not even the largest piston single maker, much less "trounce all other mfrs combined".

BTW, The Cessna part of Textron beat Cirrus by itself by over 1,000 airplanes in those 14 years, so this wasn't just because they now include Beechcraft.

Got to hand it to the Cirrus marketing machine, they create all these beneficial perceptions about their product. It isn't the most sold or have the safest record, yet many believe that.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394 ... 512  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.