Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

N247AB landed safely on a freeway just south of Salt Lake City yesterday.  It looks to be almost new.  I wonder if this plane suffered from the new Continental retaining clip problem.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50579580/small-plane-lands-on-bangerter-highway-in-south-jordan

Also interesting that he didn't pull his chute.  But it all worked out well, even his proximity to U42, which local news says they were able to tow the plane to without incident.

I'm very happy they and the motorists all walked away.

Ute

  • Like 1
Posted

Totally undamaged.  Not even any damage to cars or road signs.  They did a great job, especially considering it was a busy time of day, just after work.

Posted
4 hours ago, UteM20F said:

I wonder if this plane suffered from the new Continental retaining clip problem.

manufactured in 2019, so not likely

"Airman" Save!

-dan

  • Like 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

love it when drivers are filming instead of paying attention to the road.

One has to keep ones priorities straight..................... :lol:

  • Haha 3
Posted
On 2/17/2023 at 3:07 PM, Mcstealth said:

Maybe below minimum altitude for chute??

Had a customer leave the plant in an SR-22, lost the fuel pump before getting to cruise altitude and the engine quit, elected to not pull the chute and landed in a peanut field in Camilla Ga. Broke one wheel pant.

Put airplane on a roll back wrecker, Police blocked the road and went to local airport, fuel pump replaced, unbroken wheel pant removed, flew home.

Had he pulled the chute, it’s very likely from my understanding that there would have been severe damage, possibly even totaling the aircraft.

I think that the chute isn’t always the best solution.

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Had a customer leave the plant in an SR-22, lost the fuel pump before getting to cruise altitude and the engine quit, elected to not pull the chute and landed in a peanut field in Camilla Ga. Broke one wheel pant.

Put airplane on a roll back wrecker, Police blocked the road and went to local airport, fuel pump replaced, unbroken wheel pant removed, flew home.

Had he pulled the chute, it’s very likely from my understanding that there would have been severe damage, possibly even totaling the aircraft.

I think that the chute isn’t always the best solution.

A side benefit is that it ensures some degree of fleet turnover. How many Mooneys in the current fleet would have been eliminated if they had chutes and the pilots adhered to the “pull first and ask questions later approach”? Mine would have likely ended up a total loss somewhere on the Crowe Creek Reservation rather than making a white knuckle, 3 cylinder approach into Winner, SD.

  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

A side benefit is that it ensures some degree of fleet turnover. How many Mooneys in the current fleet would have been eliminated if they had chutes and the pilots adhered to the “pull first and ask questions later approach”? Mine would have likely ended up a total loss somewhere on the Crowe Creek Reservation rather than making a white knuckle, 3 cylinder approach into Winner, SD.

Maybe higher fleet turnover is better than higher pilot turnover?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

Maybe higher fleet turnover is better than higher pilot turnover?

No question there. I am pro chute but perhaps a touch more hesitant in what constitutes a “pull now” situation than your average Cirrus driver.  I’m not sure that chutes are having a statistically significant impact on fatalities per flight hour  vs non equipped aircraft.
Outcomes for all emergencies are even harder to capture. My father’s in flight engine failure is not recorded anywhere but in our logs and family lore.

One thing is for sure, chutes are certainly having a statistical impact on aircraft sales.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

Maybe higher fleet turnover is better than higher pilot turnover?

Depends on whether you're an airplane manufacturer or a flight school.

;)

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

No question there. I am pro chute but perhaps a touch more hesitant in what constitutes a “pull now” situation than your average Cirrus driver.  I’m not sure that chutes are having a statistically significant impact on fatalities per flight hour  vs non equipped aircraft.
Outcomes for all emergencies are even harder to capture. My father’s in flight engine failure is not recorded anywhere but in our logs and family lore.

One thing is for sure, chutes are certainly having a statistical impact on aircraft sales.

My impression was that Cirrus marketed their planes to (broad generalization warning) high net-worth individuals with low piloting skills. Given that population, both the fixed gear and chute make a lot of sense. So does the extensive Cirrus-specific training. It’s not a dig at Cirrus, just my unscientific observation. I know a Cirrus pilot that had a catastrophic engine failure in an SR-22T over Santa Ana. He declared an emergency and landed at John Wayne. He’s also a highly experienced pilot and said he never really seriously considered pulling the chute because he knew he could make the field under control. If he had been a 150 hour pilot then the chute pull would have made a lot more sense and probably would have had a similar outcome (for him, not the plane). 


I guess I don’t get the problem with losing a bunch of Cirri to chute pulls. Seems that is just part of the design. 

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

My impression was that Cirrus marketed their planes to (broad generalization warning) high net-worth individuals with low piloting skills. Given that population, both the fixed gear and chute make a lot of sense. So does the extensive Cirrus-specific training. It’s not a dig at Cirrus, just my unscientific observation. I know a Cirrus pilot that had a catastrophic engine failure in an SR-22T over Santa Ana. He declared an emergency and landed at John Wayne. He’s also a highly experienced pilot and said he never really seriously considered pulling the chute because he knew he could make the field under control. If he had been a 150 hour pilot then the chute pull would have made a lot more sense and probably would have had a similar outcome (for him, not the plane). 


I guess I don’t get the problem with losing a bunch of Cirri to chute pulls. Seems that is just part of the design. 

I would agree but soften the assessment to say low time/ low experience rather than low skill (though in some cases low skill  is likely more accurate).

The problem is that it’s a relatively small insurance pool. For nearly two decades, my annual insurance premium was reliably ~1.5% of hull value up +/- .2%. About five years ago it started climbing steeply. Today, it’s ~3.5% of hull value and I expect it will go up again at renewal.  There are lots of things driving the increase, but it’s hard not to look critically at the picture of a $2MM Vision jet sitting in a swamp under canopy when it had been functioning perfectly up until the owner decided that the very typical Florida afternoon weather he opted to tackle was above his skill level.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Had a customer leave the plant in an SR-22, lost the fuel pump before getting to cruise altitude and the engine quit, elected to not pull the chute and landed in a peanut field in Camilla Ga. Broke one wheel pant.

Put airplane on a roll back wrecker, Police blocked the road and went to local airport, fuel pump replaced, unbroken wheel pant removed, flew home.

Had he pulled the chute, it’s very likely from my understanding that there would have been severe damage, possibly even totaling the aircraft.

I think that the chute isn’t always the best solution.

Dozens of Cirrus chute pulled aircraft have been repaired and returned to service. And the insurance companies didn't have to pay out millions to dead people, or go to trial over product defects, etc. The chute option has saved many people, saved many planes that will fly again, and saved millions in claims. There is no doubt that the chute in the Cirrus has changed aviation for the better.

Posted
11 hours ago, philiplane said:

Dozens of Cirrus chute pulled aircraft have been repaired and returned to service. And the insurance companies didn't have to pay out millions to dead people, or go to trial over product defects, etc. The chute option has saved many people, saved many planes that will fly again, and saved millions in claims. There is no doubt that the chute in the Cirrus has changed aviation for the better.

If so then Cirrus insurance would be significantly cheaper than other fixed gear aircraft, that’s how insurance works, any significant increase in safety reduces the rate. 

I don’t have a clue what rate Cirrus has, is it lower than average for a fixed gear?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.