Mooney's answer to the 'chute?

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

in an engine out scenario in a single engine I would rather have a parachute in some situations.

Then you can get a Cirrus Jet. It will have the G3000 with autoland option.  And, the parachute.  

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

A few of you have known about this, but for the rest, its now out in the wild. Suffice it to say it wont be an upgrade, but perhaps on new Ultras?

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/?utm_source=Americas&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=en-US Delivery%2C Autoland Announcement%2C avn%2C MCJT-26608

I figure in 10 years or so - after the FAA is used to allowing these things on GA airplanes as safety enhancers in OEM equipment, and the AOPA softens them up a bit - there may well be a solution for retro-fit.  But as I said above - not a gfc500 alone since auto throttle and auto brakes is a crucial piece of such a complete system.

Still good day for GA.

And good day for Mooney if they can get this since it is a strong argument that a chute isn't always best.  In fact in incapacitation scenarios I would definitely rather auto land.  This now is a major major innovation and a strong argument in the short run to buy new.

How many of those cirrus chute pulls were engine outs and how many were other reasons?

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Then you can get a Cirrus Jet. It will have the G3000 with autoland option.  And, the parachute.  

I'm not flying in an airplane unless I can have autopilot, auto land, a chute and also an ejection seat.  When will cirrus jet also have an ejection seat. But I want an ejection seat that has fold out quad copter arms that then fly me and my chair to my destination un interrupted rather than a silly chute that deposits me in someones front lawn.  Or an emergency auto land that lands me at the wrong airport.  I am a busy man and I need to get where Im going.

[gsxrpilot]

22 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

That steel cage doesn’t seem to prevent fires.

And the chute does? 

[ArtVandelay]

And the chute does? 

From ground impact, yes.


Tom

[toto]

Diamond was pretty far along with their autoland tech back in 2015 (planned to release it with the DA62 iirc).  But they ran into some certification snags or something and backed away.

 

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

That steel cage doesn’t seem to prevent fires.


Tom

Ask Mr. Brandemuhl’s  family if they would’ve wished he had bought a parachute-equipped plane.  Well I appreciate all of the Mooney  airplane’s positives, I think technology is leaving it behind. Also I did not know Cirrus airplanes any less crashworthy or indestructible. FAR 23 is a higher standard than CAR 3. 

[aviatoreb]

13 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

From ground impact, yes.


Tom

I have seen at least one video of a cirrus burning on impact with a chute if memory serves.  And cirrus have burned in many scenarios.  So have mooneys.  Don't get me wrong if i could install a chute I might but if its because I think the total probability of a fire was lower I think that is incorrect.

Now given the latest greatest technology.  I would take an auto land option over a chute option.  

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

The gfc500 in its current version couldn't possibly handle this.  I think you need autopilot control over throttles - auto throttle.  Otherwise the autopilot would be planting an airplane on the runway at cruise speed.

you have a very low drag aircraft, I’m not sure if it can even fly a 3 degree glide path clean at a reasonable speed. 

[mike_elliott]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Ask Mr. Brandemuhl’s  family if they would’ve wished he had bought a parachute-equipped plane.  Well I appreciate all of the Mooney  airplane’s positives, I think technology is leaving it behind. Also I did not know Cirrus airplanes any less crashworthy or indestructible. FAR 23 is a higher standard than CAR 3. 

I thought we had more class than that...

[jetdriven]

If he had a Cirrus we could ask him. Do you wish to comment on the issue, Mike, or simply comment again about me.  
This a big shortcoming of legacy aircraft.  Hitting obstacles at 60+ KT with everything that happens after that.  I think most pilots greatly discount that risk. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by jetdriven

[aviatoreb]

10 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

If he had a Cirrus we could ask him. Do you wish to comment on the issue, Mike, or simply comment again about me.  
This a big shortcoming of legacy aircraft.  Hitting obstacles at 60+ KT with everything that happens after that.  I think most pilots greatly discount that risk. 

Too much Byron.  Seriously - it comes off as over the top nasty.  I am sure you don't mean it that way and you are trying to bluntly make a point but this tragedy is too fresh for people.  Then whatever point you were making gets lost in the shock of the blunt tone deafness. Please - just don't.

[mike_elliott]

25 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

If he had a Cirrus we could ask him. Do you wish to comment on the issue, Mike, or simply comment again about me.  
This a big shortcoming of legacy aircraft.  Hitting obstacles at 60+ KT with everything that happens after that.  I think most pilots greatly discount that risk. 

Byron this isnt about you, I am sorry to say. The fact that Mark pulled up to miss an oncoming car and crashed his plane to prevent taking out another could not have been prevented pulling a chute 10" off the deck.

The lady in the car was most appreciative of Marks self sacrifice. 

If he had a Cirrus, he may have survived, he may have taken out a house full of children...we dont know. We do know Marks reaction was to save another, he couldnt have done that if he was floating down in a chute 

[kortopates]

39 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

From ground impact, yes.


Tom

There is very little risk of fire as long as the pilot approaches the ground at normal approach speed and has enough room to decelerate without a lot of excess G's. Remember the energy required to be absorbed to stop increases by the square of the ground speed. Furthermore, the tanks are better protected than your earlier comments on bladders helping presumed. There is no fuel directly behind the leading edge of the wing, this is where the aileron push-rod linkages are located. The fuel is behind another aluminum bay. Perhaps why we've never seen fuel leakage from a bird strike that went through the leading edge. A force strong enough to rupture both the leading edge and continue through the aluminum wall into the fuel bay isn't going to be deterred by bladders either.  Best defense is to come down as slowly as possible followed by having some room to slow down. 

[Yetti]

So too lazy to look it up, but was working though the engine monitor and other systems.   Does the sensorcon co2 thingy have an output that I can hook up to my fancy screen.

Cause then I could use it to trigger the descent to land or just descend till levels get better.  Or shut off the heater vent.

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

That steel cage doesn’t seem to prevent fires.


Tom

Add bladders... 

[jetdriven]

28 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Byron this isnt about you, I am sorry to say. The fact that Mark pulled up to miss an oncoming car and crashed his plane to prevent taking out another could not have been prevented pulling a chute 10" off the deck.

The lady in the car was most appreciative of Marks self sacrifice. 

If he had a Cirrus, he may have survived, he may have taken out a house full of children...we dont know. We do know Marks reaction was to save another, he couldnt have done that if he was floating down in a chute 

Its not about me, thanks for the reminder. But calling me classless turned the discussion.

COPA may disagree with your assessment. I havent heard of one taking out a house full of children yet. That's a straw man argument.   Yes, they pull at altitude, and the aircraft descends under canopy at 15-28 FPS. While the pilot has no control after that point, the stats bear out very good outcomes.  But the pilot doesnt have to make a split-second choice between bad or worse outcomes. I'm not criticising Mr. B's actions. But he had fewer options than are currently available.  Personal choice, but dont call a CAPS-equipped airplane inferior to a Mooney.

Three days ago we had a very close near midair collision.  The 172 passed less than 15' below us travelling from left to right. It makes you think of another option besides certain death from airframe destruction after a midair. Maybe it would still fly,  maybe we would be killed from impact. But its like the .45 in your nightstand drawer. Its one more option that others dont have.  Discuss that.

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Its not about me, thanks for the reminder.... Discuss that.

So you are going to ride this one and win an argument.

Ok - you win.

Now please shut down your tone deaf appeal to a recent tragedy as part of your fantastic quiver of correct and unassailable arguments.  Again, too fresh and too recent a tragedy.  Use another one of your fantastic and unassailable arguments in your game winning hand.  But no need I declare you the winner.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by aviatoreb

[jetdriven]

you're right. strike that example.

Lets take a random sample of a Mooney (or Bonanza etc) aircraft that have had inflight power loss and subsequent landings, and the same sample size of Cirrus airplanes.  Lets analyze the outcomes.    Yours is one, and it turned out very well.

[aviatoreb]

18 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

you're right. strike that example.

Lets take a random sample of a Mooney (or Bonanza etc) aircraft that have had inflight power loss and subsequent landings, and the same sample size of Cirrus airplanes.  Lets analyze the outcomes.    Yours is one, and it turned out very well.

Thank you.  I really got worked up because ... well like I said.  You might be right but wrong for the scenario.  We don't want to be showing up at a funeral saying loudly too bad he was smoking or he might not have gotten lung cancer, whether or not that might be true.  Anyway, thank you Byron for backing off.  I do mean that sincerely.

As for my situation - quite right - the engine out landing - on a runway.  As they say - for the Grace of God I walk.  Sure, I had good training (didn't panic but kept doing what I needed to do) and good planning to also be very high when that happened (as I often do enroute) (and as a rule always flying at day SE, then and still today - and no SE low IFR ) that gave me options, but I am the first to emphasize, I also had great luck that day.   I do what I can to optimize my luck, but ... luck is always in there too.  And luck sometimes is good and sometimes luck is bad.

As for analyzing engine outs across a fleet - I bet you are right - I bet Cirrus does better statistically across the fleet than Mooney, or Bonanza, but I think we are both guessing since neither of us has statistics.  I bet they exist but I certainly don't have them- do you? But also more relevant is the complete safety statistics.  Cirrus was initially worse than most of the GA fleet including Mooney and Bonanza but what - 5 years ago - they had a major retooling of their training and safety culture and now they have good safety statistics. The reason it used to be bad is complex but despite or perhaps because of the chute many people used to make poor decisions and put themselves into poor situations.   I mean measured in units of fatalities per one hundred thousand hours of flight and also accidents total per hundred thousand hours of flight.  I cant remember the numbers at the moment, but today Cirrus is better than Mooney but not by a lot. Still...its there.

But then re-looking what you said - you said inflight power loss than subsequent landings - now I wonder if those statistics even exist since perhaps many times such incidents are not even reported.  And if they are, are they recorded?  Mine was reported because I was on the radio and I declared an emergency.  The FAA did call me on the phone and just chatted with me about the incident, about a week later, but I am not sure what the purpose of that call was actually and I never heard anything about it again. The actual air traffic controller who had been handling me called me 5 min after I was on the ground because I could tell he was shaken too - on the phone after - not during -  he was steady as a rock during - and he seemed as glad to be talking to me safe on the ground as I was glad to be talking to him with me being safe on the ground - and believe me I was shaken when the rush of that event had caught up with me.....and the firemen who showed up and ended up just shaking hands.  Boy was I happy to see them and just shake hands rather than have a nasty fire for them to put out.  Still fresh in my mind even though it was two years ago.  I was following the recent tragedy not just out of sympathy, but wow was it a tough story to follow with ups and downs, but also I have been aware all along that could have been me, but for good luck.  Or he might have had a good landing if only for good luck.  I wish.

Edited October 30, 2019 by aviatoreb

[tigers2007]

HAL : I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Kerrville, Texas on the 12th of January 2019. My instructor was Don Kaye, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.

HAL: I’m sorry Dave, I won’t land the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeeBee]

As to picking the least bad, of bad choices that is already happening in automobiles, and I have experienced it. A while back I was driving when a truck at my 4 o'clock start drifting from the right lane into me. My car began steering itself to the left, it even crossed the yellow boundary line, however it determined the ditch to the left would not be safe so it slammed on the brakes to let the truck go by. It determined the ditch conditions through its high res stereoscopic cameras. High resolution topo coupled with cameras could do the same thing in an airplane. Using maps is not out of the realm as again, my car does that. If it sees on the map a curve beyond which the suspension cannot handle at the current speed it will slow. It even slows for round about. AI is here and it is at the consumer level.

With the proliferation of single pilot jets and owner flown turbo props this system is a huge quantum leap in safety and I am sure insurance rates will reflect that.

 

 

[RogueOne]

I know nasty.  What a nasty thread.

[rbridges]

8 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

 

If Mooney had a 3600# GW and this, would there be a compelling reason to buy a CIrrus?

yep, to prove you can fly slower and burn fuel faster at the same time.  

[EricJ]

I think in this case skepticism is healthy.