Vision Jet under chute

[Shadrach]

32 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

It could be like anti-lock brakes which were touted as life saving devices for years, until the stats were looked at.

What/where are the stats that you speak of?  I don't know about life saving but they almost certainly reduce accidents.  I recently had a weird issue that caused DME failure (dynamic stability control) in my 5 series.  DME inputs are used for almost everything... ABS, traction control, power steering, cruise control, AC, Speedometer, and more.  I had to drive the car for a few days with little more than a tach.  A day or two in, I was forced to make an emergency stop in the rain. It was frightening just how quickly the brakes locked and how unsettled the car became. The rear end was every bit of 2 feet off of its original line. Don't get me wrong, it was well poised by 1980's standards, but felt way less stable than it would have with ABS, TC, yaw sensors etc.  Old cars are fun to drive, but they are not nearly as stable nor safe.

[philiplane]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Sure, but how many of those chute pulls would have been crashes, with fatalities? How many would have been successful forced landings? Look at our own threads here and see how many successful forced landings there are, where if we had chutes, they would all have been “saves”

 

read about all 107 chute deployments here:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

[A64Pilot]

57 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

What/where are the stats that you speak of?  I don't know about life saving but they almost certainly reduce accidents.  I recently had a weird issue that caused DME failure (dynamic stability control) in my 5 series.  DME inputs are used for almost everything... ABS, traction control, power steering, cruise control, AC, Speedometer, and more.  I had to drive the car for a few days with little more than a tach.  A day or two in, I was forced to make an emergency stop in the rain. It was frightening just how quickly the brakes locked and how unsettled the car became. The rear end was every bit of 2 feet off of its original line. Don't get me wrong, it was well poised by 1980's standards, but felt way less stable than it would have with ABS, TC, yaw sensors etc.  Old cars are fun to drive, but they are not nearly as stable nor safe.

The subject is anti- lock brakes, not stability control, but it’s easy to Google, but I try to find sites without a bone to pick, Consumer Reports for one. For quite some time fatalities in anti lock brake vehicles were actually higher, but now the stats are essentially zero in fatal crashes, but they are now touted to reduce non fatal run off the road accidents is SUV’s and pickups

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/08/government-study-confirms-abs-effectiveness-but-mysteries-linger/index.htm

But you can find stats that say what you want to hear, they have been in existence since 1971, and the truth is that their actual increase in safety is negligible.

Well maybe not negligible because used to be you were 28% more likely to be killed in a Anti lock brake equipped vehicle, now it’s only 8% more likely, so using statistics it’s a pretty easy case to make that they make a car less safe.

But you have to be careful with stats.

In 1993 when the then new Camaro came out, it was crash tested and determined to be the safest US built car of its size.

A couple of years later when the crash statics came out, you were more likely to be killed in a Camaro than any other US built vehicle of its size.

Apparently the car was safe, but the average Camaro driver wasn’t, one assumes the words”hold my beer and watch this” were heard more often in a Camaro then say a Volvo.

Point is that not all these life saving devices actually save lives, often the money is better spent on training.

But most are lazy the desire the magic device, it’s a lot easier

[Shadrach]

On 9/15/2022 at 10:54 AM, philiplane said:

read about all 107 chute deployments here:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

Here we have a guy that was deemed qualified to fly an SR22T. He killed his own power plant shortly after take off because he incorrectly selected the "High Boost" position on the fuel pump.  During climb, max fuel flow hit 43.8gph at 36.5inHg. Aircraft data shows that as engine power faded, he simply stopped flying the plane and pulled CAPS.  The tragedy could have likely been averted if he had the presence of mind to simply flip the switch on the            f#<^ing fuel pump rather than pull the "End PIC simulation now" handle.  He wrote a check for a high dollar plane that his experience and understanding could not cash and the GA insurance pool reimbursed his estate.  Had he spent a few hundred hours more learning to how to fly low performance, legacy beer cans, he may have possessed the skills and understanding to operate a high performance machine like an SR22T.

Post Script: This pilot had a total of 604TT with 390hrs in SR22/SR22Ts that means he had 214hrs TT (I'd bet it's likely in an SR20) when he moved into the Cirrus 22 series air frame.  Like most of us, he likely didn't know what he didn't know. It's truly a shame that none of the training mechanisms caught his deficiencies. A 2480' X 30' strip is certainly enough for that airplane, but I am betting he had no clue how slim his margins actually were. If he had, he'd have been watching his engine gauges like a hawk and caught the FF issue soon after it manifested (which was upon the advancement of throttle for take off). 

 His estate filed suit against Mattituck and Cirrus in July of 2019.

[Shadrach]

12 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Well maybe not negligible because used to be you were 28% more likely to be killed in a Anti lock brake equipped vehicle, now it’s only 8% more likely, so using statistics it’s a pretty easy case to make that they make a car less safe.

But you have to be careful with stats.

Indeed you do. My guess is that those stats are highly impacted by the number of ABS vs non ABS cars on the road.  Nowadays, it must be a very small fraction of cars in operation.  It seems odd that insurance companies would offer discounts on ABS cars if they did think encouraging their customers to to drive them would limit claims.

[A64Pilot]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed you do. My guess is that those stats are highly impacted by the number of ABS vs non ABS cars on the road.  Nowadays, it must be a very small fraction of cars in operation.  It seems odd that insurance companies would offer discounts on ABS cars if they did think encouraging their customers to to drive them would limit claims.

My guess was years ago when it first came out that higher performance vehicles were more likely to be ABS equipped, so we were sort of comparing accident statistics of sports cars vs Mom’s mini van. But as the years have gone and just about everything has ABS. I’m not so sure because anti lock brakes still aren’t “working”. My latest theory is that people that have never had the anti-lock brakes kick in, when they hear the groaning and pedal pulsation, they may get off the brakes because they are confused as to what’s happening, maybe?

Back to a little training, not a device could be what’s needed, or at least training in the device.

Unless I’m mistaken to get your drivers license in Germany when I was there you had to successfully complete what amounts to a high performance driving class, we had a track close to where I lived. ADAC I think.

But insurence companies have been wrong before, remember 5 MPH bumpers? They were mandated to placate the insurence companies who's statistics said that a lot of their money was spent fixing less than 5 MPH crashes. But what happened was that the 5 MPH bumpers and their systems ended up costing far more to repair.

Sounded like a good idea at the time.

[philiplane]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Here we have a guy that was deemed qualified to fly an SR22T. He killed his own power plant shortly after take off because he incorrectly selected the "High Boost" position on the fuel pump.  During climb, max fuel flow hit 43.8gph at 36.5inHg. Aircraft data shows that as engine power faded, he simply stopped flying the plane and pulled CAPS. 

Over fueling via a boost pump is not a Cirrus specific issue. It is a Continental engine issue, since many other Continental powered planes have low boost, high boost, and or prime positions on their electric boost pumps. The thing they all have in common is, they are higher performance planes and light twins, to which he would not have been exposed, by spending many hours in lower performance legacy planes while working his way up to the Cirrus.

Fault his instructors for not covering this well. And fault the design equally, although it has been covered by service bulletins to correct this problem.

The SR22 has a simple fuel system, left, right, OFF on the selector right at the center console, and the adjacent fuel boost pump switch is selected to "prime" for starting, or to "boost" for takeoff. But the SR22T also uses high boost at high altitude for vapor suppression. Cirrus has modified the system software to disable high boost below 10,000 feet to prevent pilots from inadvertently over fueling their engines:

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-to-cirrus-address-fuel-boost-pump-issues-with-sr22t/

Edited September 15, 2022 by philiplane

[Shadrach]

On 9/15/2022 at 12:42 PM, philiplane said:

Over fueling via a boost pump is not a Cirrus specific issue. It is a Continental engine issue, since many other Continental powered planes have low boost, high boost, and or prime positions on their electric boost pumps. The thing they all have in common is, they are higher performance planes and light twins, to which he would not have been exposed, by spending many hours in lower performance legacy planes while working his way up to the Cirrus.

Fault his instructors for not covering this well. The SR22 has a simple fuel system, left, right, OFF on the selector right at the center console, and the adjacent fuel boost pump switch is selected to "prime" for starting, or to "boost" for takeoff, and for high altitude vapor suppression.

 

I did not suggest that it was a Cirrus airplane problem, I don't think that it is.  I disagree that it's a Continental problem. 

It's more likely that it's a pilot problem.  And it's apparently a recurring pilot problem with Cirrus SR22T operations. Unless you believe the NTSB needlessly urged Cirrus to take action on the 6 overfuel accidents that occured between 07/2017 and 05/2019.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AIR2204.pdf

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed you do. My guess is that those stats are highly impacted by the number of ABS vs non ABS cars on the road.  Nowadays, it must be a very small fraction of cars in operation.  It seems odd that insurance companies would offer discounts on ABS cars if they did think encouraging their customers to to drive them would limit claims.

In the 90s, USAA reduced my insurance rates for my ABS-equipped car. After several years driving history across their customer base, the discount went away.

Read up on Risk Homeostasis fir the explanation. TL/DR/Can't Google:  when drivers found they could stop shorter, they drive faster and followed closer, pushing the risky behavior until their driving risk was the same as it had been without ABS brakes.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed you do. My guess is that those stats are highly impacted by the number of ABS vs non ABS cars on the road.  Nowadays, it must be a very small fraction of cars in operation.  It seems odd that insurance companies would offer discounts on ABS cars if they did think encouraging their customers to to drive them would limit claims.

The main dangers from ABS were the early GM models that let the brake pedal go to the floor when it activated.   Some (knowledgable) drivers interpreted this as brake failure and stopped applying the brakes, or started pumping them, which meant that from that point they had none or very inefficient braking.   There were some fatalities, including at least one LEO where the survivors had a strong case.   Once GM fixed the (imho stupid) operational issue, there are very few down sides to ABS.   They were invented for airplanes, so there ya go.      The Lear 23 in the hangar at our A&P school was built in 1964 and had full electronic four-channel ABS.   It was a pretty brilliant system, built by Goodyear Aerospace, and was very simple and elegant with a simple analog computer.   There were mechanical ABS systems long before that for large airplanes.

I have lots of ABS stories from racing and teaching racing and teenager driving survival school, but suffice it to say there really aren't any significant downsides to ABS.   It can save your butt, and at a minimum it can save you from ruining a tire or two.

Unfortunately our airplanes aren't good candidates for it, otherwise it'd be a more relevant discussion. 

[philiplane]

17 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 

I did not suggest that it was a Cirrus problem, I don't think that it is.  I disagree that it's a Continental problem. 

 

It is a Continental problem. If you've only flown Lycoming powered planes, you would never run into this situation.

The turbocharged Continentals have a high boost position that can provide more fuel than the engine can possibly use. In theory, the excess fuel is supposed to go back to the tank via a return line. But at some power settings and altitudes, the excess fuel goes into the engine and drowns it. If you follow the operating procedures religiously, and you are not easily rattled during emergencies, you won't have a problem. But humans being what we are, brains can lock up in some circumstances and now you have a machine, that is not fool-proof, doing something that it shouldn't be able to do. I think it's a poor design on Continental's part. No engine should be able to drown in fuel, by selection of a boost pump. 

Twin turbos (used on the SR22T) are also a problem. When one of the two locks up, which has been more common than it should be, the engine goes into a severely over-rich condition, and it's not immediately apparent how to fix it. Reducing fuel flow via the mixture control is the answer. A Lycoming uses a more sophisticated fuel servo that will compensate for the reduced mass airflow with one turbo inoperative, the Continental will not since it has a primitive fuel injection system.

[Fly Boomer]

11 minutes ago, philiplane said:

poor design on Continental's part. No engine should be able to drown in fuel, by selection of a boost pump

I think high boost is designed to replace pressure from a failed engine-driven pump.

[Shadrach]

15 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The main dangers from ABS were the early GM models that let the brake pedal go to the floor when it activated.   Some (knowledgable) drivers interpreted this as brake failure and stopped applying the brakes, or started pumping them, which meant that from that point they had none or very inefficient braking.   There were some fatalities, including at least one LEO where the survivors had a strong case.   Once GM fixed the (imho stupid) operational issue, there are very few down sides to ABS.   They were invented for airplanes, so there ya go.      The Lear 23 in the hangar at our A&P school was built in 1964 and had full electronic four-channel ABS.   It was a pretty brilliant system, built by Goodyear Aerospace, and was very simple and elegant with a simple analog computer.   There were mechanical ABS systems long before that for large airplanes.

I have lots of ABS stories from racing and teaching racing and teenager driving survival school, but suffice it to say there really aren't any significant downsides to ABS.   It can save your butt, and at a minimum it can save you from ruining a tire or two.

Unfortunately our airplanes aren't good candidates for it, otherwise it'd be a more relevant discussion. 

my first ABS equipped vehicle was a used 1984 318i.  It felt very modern at the time.  It took a while to get over the urge to release pressure when the ABS pulsed the pedal. 

Relevant to the discussion.  I think ABS would do a lot to help save GA tires and very little to shorten stop distances or add safety. Though I have seen more than a few tire blow outs from new pilots locking up the brakes. 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, philiplane said:

It is a Continental problem. If you've only flown Lycoming powered planes, you would never run into this situation.

The turbocharged Continentals have a high boost position that can provide more fuel than the engine can possibly use. In theory, the excess fuel is supposed to go back to the tank via a return line. But at some power settings and altitudes, the excess fuel goes into the engine and drowns it. If you follow the operating procedures religiously, and you are not easily rattled during emergencies, you won't have a problem. But humans being what we are, brains can lock up in some circumstances and now you have a machine, that is not fool-proof, doing something that it shouldn't be able to do. I think it's a poor design on Continental's part. No engine should be able to drown in fuel, by selection of a boost pump. 

Twin turbos (used on the SR22T) are also a problem. When one of the two locks up, which has been more common than it should be, the engine goes into a severely over-rich condition, and it's not immediately apparent how to fix it. Reducing fuel flow via the mixture control is the answer. A Lycoming uses a more sophisticated fuel servo that will compensate for the reduced mass airflow with one turbo inoperative, the Continental will not since it has a primitive fuel injection system.

We can agree that it's a suboptimal system. Perhaps High Boost should be relegated to a separate switch.  I have flown lots of engines both Lyc and Cont. Regardless of make, one should make it one's business to know what take off FF range is acceptable. Just like one should know what oil pressure, CHT and EGT range is acceptable. This should be well ingrained by 390hrs in type. I have aborted take offs because it was obvious from EGT that there was an ignition problem. Two links in the accident chain in quick succession, failing to follow procedure and failure to see the results of that failure manifesting on the gauges. That is a pilot problem in my opinion.

[EricJ]

22 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

my first ABS equipped vehicle was a used 1984 318i.  It felt very modern at the time.  It took a while to get over the urge to release pressure when the ABS pulsed the pedal. 

Relevant to the discussion.  I think ABS would do a lot to help save GA tires and very little to shorten stop distances or add safety. Though I have seen more than a few tire blow outs from new pilots locking up the brakes. 

Yes, that does seem to be something that happens more often than one would expect.

This is my fave example.   Tracing the part numbers it appears to have come from an A-4 or something with similar wheels:

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

In the 90s, USAA reduced my insurance rates for my ABS-equipped car. After several years driving history across their customer base, the discount went away.

Read up on Risk Homeostasis fir the explanation. TL/DR/Can't Google:  when drivers found they could stop shorter, they drive faster and followed closer, pushing the risky behavior until their driving risk was the same as it had been without ABS brakes.

In “The Armchair Economist” the author makes an excellent argument that ABS brakes change driving behavior and lead to increased accidents not because they inherently reduce safety but because they result in more aggressive behavior due to the perception that the consequences will be reduced. His solution was to place a big spike in the center of the steering wheel to encourage people to drive safely.

I’ve heard similar arguments used for BRS, 2nd engines, high performance planes, etc.

My driving behavior didn’t change when I got an ABS vehicle and I doubt it would change if I had a parachute. Maybe I’ll even strap a fire extinguisher to my pant leg just to be safe.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

In “The Armchair Economist” the author makes an excellent argument that ABS brakes change driving behavior and lead to increased accidents not because they inherently reduce safety but because they result in more aggressive behavior due to the perception that the consequences will be reduced. His solution was to place a big spike in the center of the steering wheel to encourage people to drive safely.

I’ve heard similar arguments used for BRS, 2nd engines, high performance planes, etc.

My driving behavior didn’t change when I got an ABS vehicle and I doubt it would change if I had a parachute. Maybe I’ll even strap a fire extinguisher to my pant leg just to be safe.

I don’t believe the average driver even knows they have ABS much less what it does, car people maybe, but not average driver. If you ask them how a car works they will tell you that the gas goes in here and the key there, that’s the extent of their knowledge. That’s why I’m sure it doesn’t change their driving habits.

Lady worked at the FBO drove one of the bigger SUV’s she would fill up when it hit half a tank as she noticed it would drive far longer on the first half than the second, so it MUST be getting better milage on the first half. She wasn’t a stupid person but you couldn’t convince her that her SUV got better milage on the first half a tank.

Wife has always been a performance car person, has no idea how they work, just likes fast cars.

I don’t know about now, but in 05 when she bought her CTS-V, it was the only GM car that the stability system could be turned completely off. It has three modes, full, sport and off.

On track days the stability system is interesting, it will allow you to push the car harder than you normally would as it will “save” it from breaking the back end free etc., but once it hits its limits your most likely going off track, once it breaks your simply not better than it is.

Sport mode will let the back end come out a little and gives you a better warning, but you can keep pushing the car and stability system will save it, until again it can’t and the point where it can and can’t is a fine line.

Turn it off and most likely your lap times will increase but you can then really feel the car is getting close to letting go and back off.

Stability control will allow the car to make a turn average driver can’t, but once it breaks free, it’s gone. If anyone has ever driven a Formula car with aerodynamics it’s sort of like that, if they get just a little sideways, the downforce decreases and it’s gone.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

Yes, that does seem to be something that happens more often than one would expect.

This is my fave example.   Tracing the part numbers it appears to have come from an A-4 or something with similar wheels:

That I bet was from a parking brake, helicopters busted tires all the time, not that bad of course, but you would practice slope landings which meant the parking brakes were set, then a little later practice roll on landings, guess what you forgot? You would think that as you could quickly jerk up on the collective you could save it, but nobody ever did that I know of, they would bust almost instantly.

Parking brake knob in my Maule looked exactly like the fresh air knob as the were the same cable, I almost landed one day with the handle out. I disconnected the parking brake after that as it tends to lead to grief on a tail dragger.

Tempted to on the Mooney, because I never, ever use the parking brake and can’t image ever doing so. I travel with chocks

[carusoam]

There is one boost pump for the ovation…

Two switches…

• Lo Boost
• Hi Boost

At full throttle, the boost pump is an automated function…

 

The important thing to notice… the Hi Boost switch has a cover to keep from accidentally deploying it…

 

If the mechanic fuel pump croaks… fire up the Hi Boost.

’95 Firebird has ABS, airbags, and some form of traction control…

No accidents in 180k miles… 
 

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

22 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

That I bet was from a parking brake, helicopters busted tires all the time, not that bad of course, but you would practice slope landings which meant the parking brakes were set, then a little later practice roll on landings, guess what you forgot? You would think that as you could quickly jerk up on the collective you could save it, but nobody ever did that I know of, they would bust almost instantly.

Parking brake knob in my Maule looked exactly like the fresh air knob as the were the same cable, I almost landed one day with the handle out. I disconnected the parking brake after that as it tends to lead to grief on a tail dragger.

Tempted to on the Mooney, because I never, ever use the parking brake and can’t image ever doing so. I travel with chocks

Vintage Mooney has the park brake next to the cabin heater circuit. The heat circuit has a button on the control but it’s not hard to grab the wrong one. Important to verify.

[A64Pilot]

On my J ram air, park brake, vent, defroster and heat are all identical, with ram air and park brake beside each other. I may not disconnect park brake as I never use ram air and therefor not likely to move the wrong one.

 

[Will.iam]

On 9/12/2022 at 7:40 PM, philiplane said:

The Vision Jet has coupling between the chute pull request and the autopilot. The pilot yanks the handle, and the autopilot pulls the  nose up to slow the plane to the deployment speed. It's a genius system. Does not require a lot of pilot input in an emergency situation. 

Love it or hate it, if this was any other light jet, the three people would be dead. It's that simple.

Does the autopilot know what attitude you are before pulling up? If so why not hit the auto level instead of the chute? If not then getting vertigo in the weather one could very easily be spiraling down or inverted to which having the autopilot just pull up would only aggravate and make the problem worse before chute deployment. Maybe those are the chute deployments that don’t end well?

[Will.iam]

On 9/12/2022 at 7:40 PM, philiplane said:

The Vision Jet has coupling between the chute pull request and the autopilot. The pilot yanks the handle, and the autopilot pulls the  nose up to slow the plane to the deployment speed. It's a genius system. Does not require a lot of pilot input in an emergency situation. 

Love it or hate it, if this was any other light jet, the three people would be dead. It's that simple.

Does the autopilot know what attitude you are before pulling up? If so why not hit the auto level instead of the chute? If not then getting vertigo in the weather one could very easily be spiraling down or inverted to which having the autopilot just pull up would only aggravate and make the problem worse before chute deployment. Maybe those are the chute deployments that don’t end well?

[A64Pilot]

I would suspect that this thing is an awfully sophisticated system, I would be surprised if it would allow you to get into an unusual attitude, it may for an example not allow more than 30 degrees up and down or 60 degrees if bank. If so then I’d assume pulling that handle makes it roll wings level, maybe nose up power back and slow down, then pop the chute at its best speed, it may even tie into a radar altimeter so if low it will climb if able

Pure supposition, but anything that can shoot an approach and land itself and I assume stop with the push of a button is one heck of a sophisticated thing, ever since I saw a rocket smoothly land on its tail from a supersonic speed, I don’t doubt much anymore.

[Will.iam]

On 9/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, A64Pilot said:

I would suspect that this thing is an awfully sophisticated system, I would be surprised if it would allow you to get into an unusual attitude, it may for an example not allow more than 30 degrees up and down or 60 degrees if bank. If so then I’d assume pulling that handle makes it roll wings level, maybe nose up power back and slow down, then pop the chute at its best speed, it may even tie into a radar altimeter so if low it will climb if able

Pure supposition, but anything that can shoot an approach and land itself and I assume stop with the push of a button is one heck of a sophisticated thing, ever since I saw a rocket smoothly land on its tail from a supersonic speed, I don’t doubt much anymore.

And so if that’s the case why pull the chute? Press the autolevel that even a gfc-500 has and let the autopilot save both you and the plane. Only time i could see using the chute would be for uncontrolled flight which that autopilot will not work either or maybe fuel starvation but even then might want autopilot flying to control what typeof terrain you hit as opposed to random drop somewhere.