Vision Jet under chute

[A64Pilot]

Don’t have any links but apparently one came down under its chute near Palatka Fl yesterday, in the rain. I know nothing about it, but saw the news of the aircraft in the trees, it was definitely the new Cirrus Jet.

99% sure this is it

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/cirrus-sf50-vision-jet-n77vj-accident.html

Sorry, you beat me to it

[Shadrach]

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/cirrus-sf50-vision-jet-n77vj-accident.html?m=1
 

[ArtVandelay]

From one of the comments:
“It's time to get the politicians who mandated low flow toilets to make ballistic chutes mandatory, with a 2-year grandfathering after which older GA aircraft that don't get retrofitted are retired from service.”

That’s right, all GA planes that aren’t retrofitted with chutes in 2 years will be retired.

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

From one of the comments:
“It's time to get the politicians who mandated low flow toilets to make ballistic chutes mandatory, with a 2-year grandfathering after which older GA aircraft that don't get retrofitted are retired from service.”

That’s right, all GA planes that aren’t retrofitted with chutes in 2 years will be retired.

I think that poster was being deliberately obnoxious and ironic.  I agree with that sentiment.

Doesn't the vision jet also have an emergency auto land feature?  So simple pilot disorientation wouldn't be a reason to pull the shoot vs autoland at a nice airport which would be both safer and less damage.

[toto]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I think that poster was being deliberately obnoxious and ironic.  I agree with that sentiment.

Doesn't the vision jet also have an emergency auto land feature?  So simple pilot disorientation wouldn't be a reason to pull the shoot vs autoland at a nice airport which would be both safer and less damage.

I believe the second-gen VJ has the Autonomi feature or whatever it’s called (the Garmin autoland service). This might have been a first-gen plane. 

[toto]

Yeah it looks like this is a 2018 VJ. Cirrus announced “Safe Return” in 2020, so this a/c would not have had the Garmin autoland feature. 

It might not have helped anyway, since the conditions that would lead to a chute pull probably mean that a safe landing under power is impossible (and I think that the autoland system requires an otherwise healthy airplane — aiui it’s there for use by passengers if the pilot is incapacitated). 

[aviatoreb]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:06 PM, toto said:

I believe the second-gen VJ has the Autonomi feature or whatever it’s called (the Garmin autoland service). This might have been a first-gen plane. 

Probably.  A parachute and emergency auto land is quite a compelling package.

Edited December 3, 2022 by aviatoreb

[toto]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Probably.  A parachute and emergency auto lane is quite a compelling package.

No doubt. Together they cover almost every failure state aside from a failure of pilot judgment (and they’ll probably cover a couple of those situations too). 

[A64Pilot]

I was wondering what the chute deployment window was, I assume this thing moves along pretty good, way faster than you could use the chute, but it does have the ring that slows chute deployment, so who knows. Always assumed you had to slow down to use the chute, meaning you have a controllable airplane, so why use the chute?

Assumption being that the world has gone to crap, I don’t have control anymore, pull the chute, but by that time your outside of its deployment window?

As a quick look it seems it cruises close to 300 kts, but max deployment speed is 145 kts?

[T. Peterson]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I was wondering what the chute deployment window was, I assume this thing moves along pretty good, way faster than you could use the chute, but it does have the ring that slows chute deployment, so who knows. Always assumed you had to slow down to use the chute, meaning you have a controllable airplane, so why use the chute?

Assumption being that the world has gone to crap, I don’t have control anymore, pull the chute, but by that time your outside of its deployment window?

I suppose if the engine quit at altitude you should be able to fly the airplane into the deployment envelope?

[toto]

16 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I was wondering what the chute deployment window was, I assume this thing moves along pretty good, way faster than you could use the chute, but it does have the ring that slows chute deployment, so who knows. Always assumed you had to slow down to use the chute, meaning you have a controllable airplane, so why use the chute?

Assumption being that the world has gone to crap, I don’t have control anymore, pull the chute, but by that time your outside of its deployment window?

As a quick look it seems it cruises close to 300 kts, but max deployment speed is 145 kts?

My understanding is that the VJ is different from the SR chutes. In the VJ, pulling the chute is basically an autopilot function. You pull it at any airspeed, and the autopilot configures the plane to be within deployment parameters and then deploys when safe. 

(Or something like that, idk I read a brochure a few years back..)

[A64Pilot]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:32 PM, T. Peterson said:

I suppose if the engine quit at altitude you should be able to fly the airplane into the deployment envelope?

Yes certainly, but that doesn’t come close to the covers almost any failure. It covers engine failure.

The failure rate of a decently maintained turbine other than fuel exhaustion is very low, I don’t know the numbers, but exceedingly small. Someone I’m sure knows the numbers.

Be interesting to see what happened to cause this airplane to use the chute, engine failure seems likely to me.

 

[A64Pilot]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:47 PM, toto said:

My understanding is that the VJ is different from the SR chutes. In the VJ, pulling the chute is basically an autopilot function. You pull it at any airspeed, and the autopilot configures the plane to be within deployment parameters and then deploys when safe. 

(Or something like that, idk I read a brochure a few years back..)

That would make sense, but again assumes the aircraft systems like auto pilot are still working, and if auto pilot is working unless the engine has failed the aircraft is capable of flying 

[Ragsf15e]

On 9/10/2022 at 6:28 PM, A64Pilot said:

I was wondering what the chute deployment window was, I assume this thing moves along pretty good, way faster than you could use the chute, but it does have the ring that slows chute deployment, so who knows. Always assumed you had to slow down to use the chute, meaning you have a controllable airplane, so why use the chute?

Assumption being that the world has gone to crap, I don’t have control anymore, pull the chute, but by that time your outside of its deployment window?

As a quick look it seems it cruises close to 300 kts, but max deployment speed is 145 kts?

TAS vs IAS.  You can be cruising along at 300TAS and indicating 150ish.  Probably right around 28,000’ where these things fly.

In general though, you’re right, it’s definitely possible to be out of the envelope.  An SR22 crashed over the Sierras after icing up and losing control. Pulled the chute well above envelope and ripped it apart on the way down.

[A64Pilot]

You can think this thing to death, you could build it so a small chute deployed, slows the airplane to within limits, then drags the main out, may even work at unusual attitudes too.

But I’m pretty sure the deployment envelope is pretty much low airspeed, level flight.

My only point is that theses chutes aren’t the saving grace many think they are, they are of limited use. I’d bet more die every year from spatial disorientation or flight control malfunctions etc than engine failures, but that’s my belief.

Many will argue this but the chute initially came out as an equalivent level of safety because the aircraft didn’t meet spin recovery requirements, but unless I’m mistaken a spin is outside of its deployment envelope? 

[DXB]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

You can think this thing to death, you could build it so a small chute deployed, slows the airplane to within limits, then drags the main out, may even work at unusual attitudes too.

But I’m pretty sure the deployment envelope is pretty much low airspeed, level flight.

My only point is that theses chutes aren’t the saving grace many think they are, they are of limited use. I’d bet more die every year from spatial disorientation or flight control malfunctions etc than engine failures, but that’s my belief.

Many will ague this but the chute initially came out as an equalivent level of safety because the aircraft didn’t meet spin recovery requirements, but unless I’m mistaken a spin is outside of its deployment envelope? 

Based on weather situation, it's a distinct possibility this pilot flew into a thunderstorm and lost control.  I don't know if there was a resulting structural failure, though that airframe looks pretty intact from what I can make out.  Either way, he may have deployed the chute well outside the envelope with favorable results.   I think there have been some chute deployments on the piston Cirri outside the envelope after loss of control - some ended favorably and others didn't.  

[Ragsf15e]

You can have a million posts debating the usefulness of the chute, but looking at the one hanging in the maintenance hangar where I get my annual brings a sense of the reality.  It saved the two people flying the airplane over rugged mountains in idaho when they lost the entire left bank of cylinders as the case came apart.  I love my Mooney, but wouldn’t hesitate to trade her for an airplane with a chute if one was in my price range.

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

You can have a million posts debating the usefulness of the chute, but looking at the one hanging in the maintenance hangar where I get my annual brings a sense of the reality.  It saved the two people flying the airplane over rugged mountains in idaho when they lost the entire left bank of cylinders as the case came apart.  I love my Mooney, but wouldn’t hesitate to trade her for an airplane with a chute if one was in my price range.

Which makes you wonder how the people at Mooney decided that the reason planes weren’t selling was the lack of a second door and not the lack of parachute and useful load. I wonder how things would have gone differently if instead of adding a second door they had offered a GW increase and parachute.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I have my late father’s 1943 Caterpillar Club membership certificate.   There’s no equivalent Second Door Club. 

[toto]

4 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

You can have a million posts debating the usefulness of the chute, but looking at the one hanging in the maintenance hangar where I get my annual brings a sense of the reality.  It saved the two people flying the airplane over rugged mountains in idaho when they lost the entire left bank of cylinders as the case came apart.  I love my Mooney, but wouldn’t hesitate to trade her for an airplane with a chute if one was in my price range.

BRS does have retrofits available (you can get one now for a 172 or 182).  I wonder what threshold of interest they would need to pursue an STC for the M20 series.  Probably more interest than we'll generate here, but you never know.  Having the plane you want with a BRS seems much better than buying the plane you don't want because it comes with a BRS.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

Which makes you wonder how the people at Mooney decided that the reason planes weren’t selling was the lack of a second door and not the lack of parachute and useful load. I wonder how things would have gone differently if instead of adding a second door they had offered a GW increase and parachute.

Having been in the aircraft manufacturing business, I can tell you that statement is about as logical as saying Mooney’s would have sold if they were sold for $200,000 less, that would have been about as easy as what you propose

Adding a parachute is an enormous structural change, to say nothing of substantial increase in weight, Gross weight increase would probably mean at least a different wing, or an ELOS for not meeting stall speed, TBM I believe got one, but it’s not easy. It’s actually astonishing that Mooney was able to take that wing from the lightweight short bodies and continue using it up to the big motor Long Bodies, but it has surely about reached its limit.

If you go chasing the other guy you will lose, because you will always be one step behind.

To build a Mooney into a Cirrus you would have to start with a composite airframe, but where Cirrus beat others was marketing, they out marketed everybody else, plus they built a modern automotive looking interior with automotive level comfort.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, most experienced people don’t much care about weight, not so long as they are in CG and still have decent performance. I’ve yet to see someone break out the bathroom scale and weigh passengers and luggage.

I’m afraid the truth is that the old design aircraft days are gone, you just can’t build them as cheaply as composite, and not enough people can afford new aircraft to return to the 70’s. When you look at the production rates of the 70’s, you should remember that there are more than twice as many people around today as then.

Cirrus sold 548 last year of which 86 were Jets.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-03-01/cirrus-backlog-shows-growing-demand-personal-aircraft

710 business Jets sold last year

https://www.sherpareport.com/aircraft/new-business-jet-sales-2021.html

The days of the middle class guy buying a new airplane are about gone, hence why LSA and Experimental's are so strong.

 

[philiplane]

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.

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, 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.

Good to see the system worked. This is the first successful caps pull for a VJ.  Why did he pull? Does this also mark the first in flight failure of a Williams FJ33? Or perhaps it’s the first fuel exhaustion event in a light jet in quite some time? 

[ilovecornfields]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Having been in the aircraft manufacturing business, I can tell you that statement is about as logical as saying Mooney’s would have sold if they were sold for $200,000 less, that would have been about as easy as what you propose

Adding a parachute is an enormous structural change, to say nothing of substantial increase in weight, Gross weight increase would probably mean at least a different wing, or an ELOS for not meeting stall speed, TBM I believe got one, but it’s not easy. It’s actually astonishing that Mooney was able to take that wing from the lightweight short bodies and continue using it up to the big motor Long Bodies, but it has surely about reached its limit.

If you go chasing the other guy you will lose, because you will always be one step behind.

To build a Mooney into a Cirrus you would have to start with a composite airframe, but where Cirrus beat others was marketing, they out marketed everybody else, plus they built a modern automotive looking interior with automotive level comfort.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, most experienced people don’t much care about weight, not so long as they are in CG and still have decent performance. I’ve yet to see someone break out the bathroom scale and weigh passengers and luggage.

I’m afraid the truth is that the old design aircraft days are gone, you just can’t build them as cheaply as composite, and not enough people can afford new aircraft to return to the 70’s. When you look at the production rates of the 70’s, you should remember that there are more than twice as many people around today as then.

Cirrus sold 548 last year of which 86 were Jets.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-03-01/cirrus-backlog-shows-growing-demand-personal-aircraft

710 business Jets sold last year

https://www.sherpareport.com/aircraft/new-business-jet-sales-2021.html

The days of the middle class guy buying a new airplane are about gone, hence why LSA and Experimental's are so strong.

 

I guess ignorance is bliss. When @Johnny mentioned the GW increase he didn’t mention ripping off the wings. Sounded like it was more of a landing gear change. Vortex generators (which I already have) have been used in other applications to increase gross weight as well.

Good thing the old Cessnas that were retrofitted with BRS didn’t realize that they had to be redesigned from the ground up. Otherwise it would never have worked.

As someone who actually stays within CG and weight limits, weighs passengers and weighs luggage it’s reassuring to hear they I don’t need to waste my time doing this anymore since apparently nobody cares. Or maybe my 30 years of flying just haven’t given me enough “experience” to be that complacent yet.

[Ragsf15e]

23 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I guess ignorance is bliss. When @Johnny mentioned the GW increase he didn’t mention ripping off the wings. Sounded like it was more of a landing gear change. Vortex generators (which I already have) have been used in other applications to increase gross weight as well.

Good thing the old Cessnas that were retrofitted with BRS didn’t realize that they had to be redesigned from the ground up. Otherwise it would never have worked.

As someone who actually stays within CG and weight limits, weighs passengers and weighs luggage it’s reassuring to hear they I don’t need to waste my time doing this anymore since apparently nobody cares. Or maybe my 30 years of flying just haven’t given me enough “experience” to be that complacent yet.

Flying corporate, I’ve told my boss his passengers weigh too much and he would have to leave 1 off the manifest.  I’m not willing to compromise whatever safety factor we have above max weight.  Same with the Mooney.  Will it fly over gross? Sure.  Thats for the test guys to figure out though.