MVP of Safety Devices

[201er]

Alright guys. So if I redid the poll and added an option "Cirrus" who would be voting for it as their #1 safety recommendation?

[carusoam]

We recently lost a Cirrus at my second favorite airport...falmouth, MA.

Apparently you can still auger them in from traffic pattern altitude like any other airplane. I have not seen the reports, their too difficult to read anyway.

Maybe an AOA device could help them too?

-a-

[Alan Fox]

We recently lost a Cirrus at my second favorite airport...falmouth, MA.

Apparently you can still auger them in from traffic pattern altitude like any other airplane. I have not seen the reports, their too difficult to read anyway.

Maybe an AOA device could help them too?

-a-

The chute does not work at pattern altitudes....

[AndyFromCB]

We recently lost a Cirrus at my second favorite airport...falmouth, MA.

Apparently you can still auger them in from traffic pattern altitude like any other airplane. I have not seen the reports, their too difficult to read anyway.

Maybe an AOA device could help them too?

-a-

 

ESP is only available on the latest G3 generation. I've played with it, it's really hard to auger one in. It's like a stick pusher but if you really fight it, you will "win". 

[jetdriven]

Have you ever been in a Cirrus service center? My MSC Arapahoe Aero is a Cirrus Service center also. I have talked to the mechanics. Before you buy a Cirrus talk to the guy that has to fix them. Nothing is easy. Every thing costs more. Minor hanger rash becomes a much bigger deal on a Cirrus. Major airframe damage becomes prohibitivly expencive or down right inpossible. The vaccm bagged, oven cured, injection molded, composite methods cant be duplicated outside the factory. Repair and maintaience costs are double. And that is with new airframes. 50 years from now there will be no 50 year old Cirrus but there will still be Mooneys flying.

We went to a maintenance seminar hosted by Mike Busch. He manages maintenance for a large portion of the Cirrus fleet. The maintenance bills are astronomical, especially when you start talking repairs on the composite.  He did finish up the Q&A session by saying in his experience that the cost to own a Cirrus is about 30% more than the "legacy" fleet, meaning an A36.  Half of that is the ridiculous costs of FAR 23 mandatory airworthiness items. The other half is the high cost of repairing a composite airplane.

 

I still stand by the statement they are not lighter nor cheaper.  The useful load of a SR-22 is 1100 LBS, and thats not including optional equipment.

 

They are also not very efficient, especially considering it has no rivets, seams, or anything else sticking out.  A 180 TAS SR-22 turbo Cirrus burning 18 GPH looks silly compared to a 16 GPH 175 KTAS A-36, or for a real comparison, a Rocket doing 210 KTAS on the same fuel, or TAT TN A-36 around 190 KTAS with 6 seats and a 1400 LB useful load.

[AndyFromCB]

We went to a maintenance seminar hosted by Mike Busch. He manages maintenance for a large portion of the Cirrus fleet. The maintenance bills are astronomical, especially when you start talking repairs on the composite.  He did finish up the Q&A session by saying in his experience that the cost to own a Cirrus is about 30% more than the "legacy" fleet, meaning an A36.  Half of that is the ridiculous costs of FAR 23 mandatory airworthiness items. The other half is the high cost of repairing a composite airplane.

 

I still stand by the statement they are not lighter nor cheaper.  The useful load of a SR-22 is 1100 LBS, and thats not including optional equipment.

 

They are also not very efficient, especially considering it has no rivets, seams, or anything else sticking out.  A 180 TAS SR-22 turbo Cirrus burning 18 GPH looks silly compared to a 16 GPH 175 KTAS A-36, or for a real comparison, a Rocket doing 210 KTAS on the same fuel, or TAT TN A-36 around 190 KTAS with 6 seats and a 1400 LB useful load.

 

Byron,

 

Actually, the useful load of a non-turbo SR22 is 1340lb. And you'll never see 1400lb in a TAT TNA36 unless we are talking about a very old airframe. All airframes I have looked at that were of the later vintage (2006 on) end up being about 1150 useful load after TKS and TAT. Their empty weights are pushing 2850lb.

 

As to being slower than other aircraft, I concur, but after sitting in a Cirrus for 4 hours, I feel like a human. After sitting in my Bravo for 4 hours I feel like I exited the proverbial turkish prison. The cabin is so much bigger, so much better insulated.

 

Also, I'd like to see a A-36 do 175knots on 16gph. An A36 is a 165knot aircraft. Cirrus POH has actual FAA certified numbers that can be repeated. A Bo POH is a bit optimistic to say the least. As is a M20M manual when it comes to fuel flows.

 

Andy

[carusoam]

Today, I vote the 310hp IO550 placed in the Mooney of your choice...

Excess HP is good to have on hand. Unless, you have a tendency of running out of fuel and like to leave the tanks near empty...

Mooney does it best...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Found them:


Mooney 201                        43.5" 44.5"
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza   42.0" 50.0"
Cessna 182                        42.0" 48.0"
Piper Arrow                        41.0" 45.0"

Cirrus SR20/22 49" width 50" height

Heck! Looks like if I bought a Cirrus I didn't need to lose the 75 pounds!

[Alan Fox]

I concur , that 175 on 16 gph is optimistic in the Bo....

[chrisk]

We went to a maintenance seminar hosted by Mike Busch. He manages maintenance for a large portion of the Cirrus fleet. The maintenance bills are astronomical, especially when you start talking repairs on the composite.  He did finish up the Q&A session by saying in his experience that the cost to own a Cirrus is about 30% more than the "legacy" fleet, meaning an A36. 

 

I wonder how the numbers would look if gear up landings were considered a maintenance cost?  And while not maintenance,  it is certainly a cost of ownership. 

 

Anyway, I think the Cirrus is an incredible fixed gear plane.   I wonder what it could be as a retract. --Maybe a SX300

[201er]

The chute does not work at pattern altitudes....

Considering that's where most accidents happen, what good's a chute?

[201er]

I wonder how the numbers would look if gear up landings were considered a maintenance cost?  And while not maintenance,  it is certainly a cost of ownership. 

You're already paying for this as part of your insurance premium. Wonder why insurance on fixed gear cirrus is more for equal hull value if it's not more costly to fix?

[AndyFromCB]

Considering that's where most accidents happen, what good's a chute?

 

Chute is good from 400AGL on G1-G3, 600AGL on G5. Still not much that can be done for power failure on take off. Cirrus needs a solid fuel, one time rocket for that ;-) and it would be a perfect aircraft.

[Hank]

My home drome is 567' msl. Typical pattern altitudes are 1600 msl downwind, 1300 msl to turn base, 1100 msl to turn final; hold 700 feet until clear of the trees. 1100 msl is 533 agl, with typical descent of ~300 fpm, which puts you <400 agl rolling wings level, to say nothing of recognition, decision, reaction and "pull" time while descending even faster.

 

So even a G1 Cirrus with the lower altitude available for chute deployment will crash and burn on the driving range if he has a problem after deciding to turn final . . . Not good for much stall/spin prevention there, "the most dangerous turn in aviation."

 

A good chunk of the repack expen$e i$ making repair$ to the airframe where they have to dig out the $hroud$. The$e are nicely covered, gla$$ed in and $moothed over, and that mu$t be redone. It's le$$ to do on the newer model$, but i$ $till not cheap. At least they don't need much paint, because color will overheat the composite and cause a whole NEW set of problems.

 

The best "safety device" is a well trained and proficient PIC, which seat the PIC occupies is irrelevant.

[Alan Fox]

Seriously guys, How can you be so arrogant as to think a chute wont save you...How about flying IMC over rough terrain and losing the engine..... having a chute is a huge advantage..... What amount of training will help you there.....    How about losing an engine over trees ..... How about spacial disorientation....How about control system issues.....All you keep saying is it wont save you on a base to final stall spin..... Guess what.... NOTHING WILL..... Seriously you need to sit back and read your posts........That would be like me Saying that no one has ever geared up a Cirruss ..... Its a silly prospect.....

[Hank]

This is how I can say that a chute sometimes won't save you:

 

Chute is good from 400AGL on G1-G3, 600AGL on G5. Still not much that can be done for power failure on take off. Cirrus needs a solid fuel, one time rocket for that ;-) and it would be a perfect aircraft.

 

There's nothing arrogant in that at all.

 

Seriously guys, How can you be so arrogant as to think a chute wont save you...How about flying IMC over rough terrain and losing the engine..... having a chute is a huge advantage..... What amount of training will help you there.....    How about losing an engine over trees ..... How about spacial disorientation....How about control system issues.....All you keep saying is it wont save you on a base to final stall spin..... Guess what.... NOTHING WILL..... Seriously you need to sit back and read your posts........That would be like me Saying that no one has ever geared up a Cirruss ..... Its a silly prospect.....

 

The 2010 Nall Report [the latest I could find] shows approx. 40% of pilot-caused fatal accidents are related to fuel, weather or "other." A pilot who pays attention and demonstrates good ADM won't be involved in one of these. Of the remainder, another 44% of pilot-caused fatal accidents happen during Maneuvering, Descent/Approach and Landing. Most of this largest portion of pilot-caused fatal accidents will not be helped by BRS [see altitude limiations above; some will have exceeded speed limitations while maneuvering/showboating/out-of-control]. Good ADM tells you to stay out of bad weather/low clouds/low visibility without an IFR rating and flight plan; good ADM tells Instrument pilots to be current prior to making a flight; good ADM tells all pilots to verify fuel load against required fuel, verify tank selector position and monitor use [instrumentation or even just a clock]. Good ADM has kept me on the ground instead of flying into thunderstorms or icing aloft.

 

The ever-feared pilot-related fatal Departure accidents are only 17½% of the fatal accidents. But even then, if they occur below 400 agl/600 agl plus a buffer to recognize, decide and pull, the BRS won't help them, either. This category includes Runway Loss of Control, botched go arounds and everything else that could happen, like the ones who hit poles or fences due to being overweight, out of CG limits or heavy with high DA [bRS won't help them, either], and one memorable VFR pilot who climbed sharply and banked steeply to avoid the fog bank at the far end of the runway and stalled into a building with his family aboard.

 

Interestingly enough, there were apparently no pilot-related fatal accidents during cruise, day/night, over swamps, over water, through the mountains, IMC/VMC, etc. Mechanical events of any sort caused a mere 10% of fatal accidents. Even as an initial student, I had to practice [and demonstrate on my checkride] a forced landing with simulated engine out. I asked the DPE when I could put power back in when the bean field was uncomfortably close and he said he would tell me; it didn't happen until after I put the Skyhawk's flaps to 20º. We also had a discussion during the checkride about watching for and keeping track of potential forced landing sites. This was in Charleston, WV, which has a lot of terrain in all directions for a long ways. That's how training will help if you lose your engine over rough terrain. If it happens at night, even here there is a surprising amount of light except for new moons and when the moon is below the horizon; turn on your landing light, if you don't like what you see, turn it off again!  I have no data to show that this scenario happens very often [even 1%?]. You also will still have a radio, ATC can often vector you towards a nice highway or sometimes even an airport. Flying high gives additional gliding time, you do know your Best Glide airspeed and descent rates, right? Oh, yeah, that's more training!

 

How do you call us "arrogant" to not $pend the $ignificant fund$ to acquire, install and maintain a BR$ $y$tem with significant useful load limitations, when it may help prevent less than 10% of fatalities? Not flying in IMC, over water, over "terrain" or at night does not appear to offer even this limited benefit. If I didn't fly over "terrain," I couldn't fly at all here in WV; the pattern for Runway 8 is over terrain, with a nice long ridgeline between downwind and the runway, and I cross it at the Walmart gap every time the wind blows out of the east. All of those nasty unforgiving hills fade away in about 20 Mooney minutes to the north and west, but my family all lives to the south and east . . .

 

Do you have any accepted statistics to prove the real benefit of BRS? Or is it only the 44 pulls so far, some of which ended in fatalities anyway and one of which ended in no parachute but a frightened, alive-despite-the-BRS, pilot? How many flight hours? How many accidents without pulls? How many no-pulls should have pulled? How many were too fast or too low for the pull they made to be effective? How many pulls, like the no-chute man, were questionable and should have been recoverable without the chute had the pilot been proficient?

 

My mind is open to facts, otherwise it's just a discussion of opinions. My father told me growing up what opinions are like, and that everybody has one [and an opinion, too].

[Alan Fox]

This is how I can say that a chute won't save you:

 

 

There's nothing arrogant in that at all.

 

 

The 2010 Nall Report [the latest I could find] shows approx. 40% of pilot-caused fatal accidents are related to fuel, weather or "other." A pilot who pays attention and demonstrates good ADM won't be involved in one of these. Of the remainder, another 44% of pilot-caused fatal accidents happen during Maneuvering, Descent/Approach and Landing. Most of this largest portion of pilot-caused fatal accidents will not be helped by BRS [see altitude limiations above; some will have exceeded speed limitations while maneuvering/showboating/out-of-control]. Good ADM tells you to stay out of bad weather/low clouds/low visibility without an IFR rating and flight plan; good ADM tells Instrument pilots to be current prior to making a flight; good ADM tells all pilots to verify fuel load against required fuel, verify tank selector position and monitor use [instrumentation or even just a clock]. Good ADM has kept me on the ground instead of flying into thunderstorms or icing aloft.

 

The ever-feared pilot-related fatal Departure accidents is only 17½% of the fatal accidents. But even then, if they occur below 400 agl/600 agl plus a buffer to recognize, decide and pull, the BRS won't help them, either. This category includes Runway Loss of Control, botched go arounds and everything else that could happen, like the ones who hit poles or fences due to being overweight, out of CG limits or heavy with high DA [bRS won't help them, either].

 

Interestingly enough, there were apparently no pilot-related fatal accidents during cruise, day/night, over swamps, over water, through the mountains, IMC/VMC, etc. Mechanical events of any sort caused a mere 10% of fatal accidents.

 

How do you call us "arrogant" to not $pend the $ignificant fund$ to acquire, install and maintain a BR$ $y$tem with significant useful load limitations, when it may help prevent less than 10% of fatalities? Not flying in IMC, over water, over "terrain" or at night does not appear to offer even this limited benefit. If I didn't fly over "terrain," I couldn't fly at all here in WV; the pattern for Runway 8 is over terrain, with a nice long ridgeline between downwind and the runway, and I cross it at the Walmart gap every time the wind blows out of the east. All of those nasty unforgiving hills fade away in about 20 Mooney minutes to the north and west, but my family all lives to the south and east . . .

 

Do you have any accepted statistics to prove the real benefit of BRS? Or is it only the 44 pulls so far, some of which ended in fatalities anyway and one of which ended in no parachute but a frightened, alive-despite-the-BRS, pilot? How many flight hours? How many accidents without pulls? How many no-pulls should have pulled? How many were too fast or too low for the pull they made to be effective? How many pulls, like the no-chute man, were questionable and should have been recoverable without the chute had the pilot been proficient?

 

My mind is open to facts, otherwise it's just a discussion of opinions. My father told me growing up what opinions are like, and that everybody has one [and an opinion, too].

44 pulls says it all ........

[Alan Fox]

This is how I can say that a chute won't save you:

 

 

There's nothing arrogant in that at all.

 

 

The 2010 Nall Report [the latest I could find] shows approx. 40% of pilot-caused fatal accidents are related to fuel, weather or "other." A pilot who pays attention and demonstrates good ADM won't be involved in one of these. Of the remainder, another 44% of pilot-caused fatal accidents happen during Maneuvering, Descent/Approach and Landing. Most of this largest portion of pilot-caused fatal accidents will not be helped by BRS [see altitude limiations above; some will have exceeded speed limitations while maneuvering/showboating/out-of-control]. Good ADM tells you to stay out of bad weather/low clouds/low visibility without an IFR rating and flight plan; good ADM tells Instrument pilots to be current prior to making a flight; good ADM tells all pilots to verify fuel load against required fuel, verify tank selector position and monitor use [instrumentation or even just a clock]. Good ADM has kept me on the ground instead of flying into thunderstorms or icing aloft.

 

The ever-feared pilot-related fatal Departure accidents is only 17½% of the fatal accidents. But even then, if they occur below 400 agl/600 agl plus a buffer to recognize, decide and pull, the BRS won't help them, either. This category includes Runway Loss of Control, botched go arounds and everything else that could happen, like the ones who hit poles or fences due to being overweight, out of CG limits or heavy with high DA [bRS won't help them, either].

 

Interestingly enough, there were apparently no pilot-related fatal accidents during cruise, day/night, over swamps, over water, through the mountains, IMC/VMC, etc. Mechanical events of any sort caused a mere 10% of fatal accidents.

 

How do you call us "arrogant" to not $pend the $ignificant fund$ to acquire, install and maintain a BR$ $y$tem with significant useful load limitations, when it may help prevent less than 10% of fatalities? Not flying in IMC, over water, over "terrain" or at night does not appear to offer even this limited benefit. If I didn't fly over "terrain," I couldn't fly at all here in WV; the pattern for Runway 8 is over terrain, with a nice long ridgeline between downwind and the runway, and I cross it at the Walmart gap every time the wind blows out of the east. All of those nasty unforgiving hills fade away in about 20 Mooney minutes to the north and west, but my family all lives to the south and east . . .

 

Do you have any accepted statistics to prove the real benefit of BRS? Or is it only the 44 pulls so far, some of which ended in fatalities anyway and one of which ended in no parachute but a frightened, alive-despite-the-BRS, pilot? How many flight hours? How many accidents without pulls? How many no-pulls should have pulled? How many were too fast or too low for the pull they made to be effective? How many pulls, like the no-chute man, were questionable and should have been recoverable without the chute had the pilot been proficient?

 

My mind is open to facts, otherwise it's just a discussion of opinions. My father told me growing up what opinions are like, and that everybody has one [and an opinion, too].

And Im not saying that it is arrogant not to buy the chute , I am saying that it is arrogant not to give the chute the credit it deserves.....

[Hank]

Please reread my post, I was editing while you were replying.

 

44 pulls doesn't tell me much by itself. Read the penultimate paragraph with a request for statistics. How many lives were saved during those 44 pulls? [No, you can't count the imaginary hospital that the explosive Cirrus full of fuel might have hit.] How many lives were lost during those 44 pulls? How many of those 44 pulls resulted in on-board fatalities? How many of those 44 pulls were already beyond saving [too fast, too low]? How many other Cirrus accidents might have been prevented if the chute had been pulled? Get it done up per 100,000 flight hours or some other accepted standard. "44 BRS pulls in Cirrus aircraft" by itself is not data. Were they all last week? Was it one really unlucky pilot? Did it occur over five years, ten years, 20,000 total hours, 100 total hours? Please turn your one raw number into manageable data, and we can have a discussion.

[Alan Fox]

Please reread my post, I was editing while you were replying.

 

44 pulls doesn't tell me much by itself. Read the penultimate paragraph with a request for statistics. How many lives were saved during those 44 pulls? [No, you can't count the imaginary hospital that the explosive Cirrus full of fuel might have hit.] How many lives were lost during those 44 pulls? How many of those 44 pulls resulted in on-board fatalities? How many of those 44 pulls were already beyond saving [too fast, too low]? How many other Cirrus accidents might have been prevented if the chute had been pulled? Get it done up per 100,000 flight hours or some other accepted standard. "44 BRS pulls in Cirrus aircraft" by itself is not data. Were they all last week? Was it one really unlucky pilot? Did it occur over five years, ten years, 20,000 total hours, 100 total hours? Please turn your one raw number into manageable data, and we can have a discussion.

This ones for you Hank.....http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx

[Alan Fox]

My favorite is the one #6 pilot had a brain seizure and was incapacitated , passenger pulled chute , all survived......No the chute wont save you every time , but it will save you when you run out of options most of the time....

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

The chute may not help all the time but it sure as hell never hurts. Right? If the option were available for our mooneys and weight and/or cost were not a limiting factor why would anyone not want it. It's a tool for your toolbox not the end all be all.

[201er]

"189 people have perished with 24 people seriously injured and 3 with minor injuries... In the same time frame, there have been 33 "saves" with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System in which 69 people survived."

 

http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CirrusSafety.aspx

 

Sounds statistically pretty useless (especially for that kind of money). Actually it makes the plane sound like a death trap considering most accidents end up being fatal in it rather than injured. I counted 14 out of 24 serious injuries involving the chute, so only 10 people got away with injuries protected by the air frame alone. The rest died. 11 deployments resulted in death and part of 96 fatal accidents.

 

Also reading through most of these "saves" you really can't say the pilots wouldn't have made it without one. Like I can't believe they credit themselves with "saves" for these pointless deployments:

-passenger activated when fuel streaming from tank filler openings

-door popped open upon takeoff, pilot reported rain in the cockpit and attempted to manage door

-pilot disoriented during missed approach in IMC (they have a super AP onboard, cmon!)

 

I'll grant that maybe 10 of these were legit reasons where the pilot had no control and the chute really saved the day. I agree that it can be a good thing to have in the right circumstances, but it's not a reason to get a cirrus. I'm sure Mooney's airframe has saved a heck of a lot more people to escape with minor to serious injuries rather than fatal.

 

A quick search of the NSTB database shows 229 Cirrus involved in accidents/incidents. 96 accidents were previously listed as fatal. So despite a parachute system, 42% of cirrus accidents are fatal!? So 33 chute saves, leaves only 100 non-fatal incidents/accidents.

[jetdriven]

And how many of these Chute pulls would have been survivable had the chute not been pulled? The doctor flying to the Bahamas, ran out of gas, and his daughter smiling in the raft with the sinking Cirrus in the background comes to mind.

[201er]

I did a few more searches on the NTSB database using some quick parameters and minimal analysis. Searching Cirrus vs Mooney (which I bet includes all other non-m20 models too) brought up the following totals:

 

Mooney:

Non-Fatal - 2419

Fatal - 666

Total - 3085

 

Cirrus:

Non-Fatal - 126

Fatal - 92

Total - 219

 

That's 22% of accidents were fatal in Mooney while 42% were fatal in the more modern, more equipped, parachute equipped Cirrus. WTF? If that's legit, then you guys on mooneyspace are doing way better flying that tin can without a parachute!