[HN Gopher] Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida
___________________________________________________________________
Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida
Author : MDWolinski
Score : 131 points
Date : 2022-09-11 13:04 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flyingmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flyingmag.com)
| ouid wrote:
| "no life threatening injuries", but notably did not walk away
| from the crash. There's a lot in between those two.
| dmix wrote:
| I you watch the video of a previous CAPS landing over water,
| the landings can still be a bit rough:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU
|
| But obviously 10x better than the alternative.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Two out of three people walked away.
| zymhan wrote:
| > One occupant was seriously injured, and two of the three
| occupants received minor injuries.
|
| https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Looking at those photos, it seems likely the injury was
| probably because a tree branch probably smashed through the
| cabin.
|
| Not really the parachutes fault...
| dylan604 wrote:
| so, not a good landing if the definition of a good landing is
| any landing you can walk away from
| throw0101c wrote:
| _AVweb_ did an interesting video a couple of years ago, "Are
| Planes With Parachutes Really Safer?":
|
| > _The Cirrus line of aircraft have been flying for 20 years and
| although most people in aviation know they have full aircraft
| parachutes, it 's fair to ask how effective these have been. With
| more than 90 uses of the so-called CAPS, has the system really
| saved lives? In this video, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli analyzes the
| record._
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA
|
| Concludes that parachutes a generally a good thing, and even
| though the Cirrus aircraft fleet has grown from 5000 to 7000
| airplanes over the last ten years (12m30s), the anual fatality
| numbers have stay the same and so have overall annual accidents.
|
| The first few years didn't see much improvement, probably because
| the training didn't emphasize it as much, but since ~2013 the
| advice is generally " _if you 're experiencing issues just pull
| the 'chute_". There is a cost to fixing the aircraft afterwards,
| but it will be you paying it and not your widow or estate.
| plantain wrote:
| The often not considered factory is the type of pilots that are
| attracted to (or advertised at) Cirrus's are generally
| considered to be high risk / low hours / non-current, so the
| accident stats are even more remarkable.
| k1w1 wrote:
| This is an often repeated, but completely false observation.
| The reality is that Cirrus and Diamond dominate the market
| for new piston singles [1]. If you want to buy a piston
| aircraft with the latest safety features, performance,
| comfort and training, then Cirrus is the number one choice.
| Cirrus has the number 1, 3 & 6 top selling aircraft (all have
| the same airframe and avionics with different engines) and
| thus dominates new sales.
|
| The Cirrus SF50, which was the subject of this story, is the
| top selling light jet by a large margin too for many of the
| same reasons. It provides the best safety features,
| technology, comfort and price - though admittedly it does
| sacrifice performance to achieve the other attributes. This
| is aviation and everything is a collection finely balanced
| trade-offs.
|
| [1] https://gama.aero/wp-
| content/uploads/2021ShipmentReport-02-2...
| kgilpin wrote:
| It may or may not be false but I don't see the relevance of
| citing stats about the purchase of brand new airplanes. As
| I'm sure you know, most airplanes sold are used, because
| most people can't afford a brand new 4 place certificated
| airplane.
| api wrote:
| Is scaling such a thing to a passenger aircraft feasible?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Short answer, no. Mostly due to weight, speed, flight altitudes
| and different certification criteria.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| The bigger the vehicle the more altitude that is needed to
| deploy chutes. The bigger the vehicle the proportionately
| heavier the chutes need to be because they need to spread out
| more and they need to be stronger.
|
| Furthermore, most commercial aviation disasters occur at low
| altitude and the ones that happen at high altitude tend to be
| too catastrophic for chutes to be of value. (If something bad
| happens at high altitude that doesn't destroy the plane it
| tends to make it back.) Off the top of my head I can only think
| of three crashes where they could have used chutes--two where
| the hydraulics were damaged by high energy events (and would
| the chutes have worked properly??) and one fuel failure due to
| hijacking.
| barefoot wrote:
| I'd imagine it might be technically possible but not practical.
| The weight required for ballistic parachute systems is
| substantial. On small aircraft (such as Cirrus and Icon) it
| reduces the useful load, and thus range/payload, substantially.
| Range and payload are very important aspects of commercial
| passenger aircraft.
|
| Further, commercial passenger aircraft are already very safe
| due to system redundancy not practical on smaller aircraft.
| Would a ballistic parachute system help with many accidents in
| this category? I would be willing to bet not. Ballistic
| parachute systems are not a magic bullet - they require
| substantial altitude/time to deploy (as much as 900 feet in a
| spin, for example). Many substantial aviation accidents happen
| during takeoff and landing below or near these altitudes.
|
| Would you pay a multiple of your current airfare for an
| extremely small (practical) reduction in travel risk?
| teruakohatu wrote:
| I don't see why not but passenger aircraft are incredibly safe
| and the pilots are usually very experienced with at least in
| co-pilot. Even more so if you exclude war and runway related
| accidents which wouldn't be helped by a parachute.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| A parachute in the right place could help some of those
| landing/runway incidents too. But hard to imagine many pilots
| deploying the chute on a landing they thought they were good
| for.
| kube-system wrote:
| Chutes take some period of time before they begin slowing
| the aircraft. If distance to impact is less than the
| distance to deploy the chute, the chute does not help.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| Not true, I think. Even a partial deployment will help
| provide drag and reduce aircraft velocity
| Syonyk wrote:
| But they also come at the expense of control. Once you
| pop the chute, you're a passenger, you no longer have the
| ability to control or point the airplane in any preferred
| direction.
|
| If you've lost that ability already, the chute is fine,
| but if you still have the ability to influence your path,
| being able to pick what you hit and how fast you hit it
| can be worth a lot.
| ilamont wrote:
| It amazes me the way the pilot doing the demonstration in the
| video (embedded in TFA) is so calm and matter-of-fact about the
| process. It's putting a remarkable degree of trust in an
| automated system, which, if there were some edge case failure,
| would be fatal.
| bambataa wrote:
| They're in a simulator, aren't they?
| drakythe wrote:
| You mean they trained for this in a simulator? Probably yes.
| Was this incident in a simulator? Nope. This was a live pull
| in a real world scenario.
|
| Edit: ah I see, the video footage. I was unable to watch due
| to mobile. My apologies!
| yathern wrote:
| They're saying that the attached video in the article is
| from a simulator training. The video is not of the real
| life usage that just occurred.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Demonstration in embedded video is a simulator, though.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The embedded video is in a simulator. The article contains
| no pictures or video related to a real world deployment.
| bragr wrote:
| >It's putting a remarkable degree of trust in an automated
| system, which, if there were some edge case failure, would be
| fatal.
|
| You are doing that every time you climb in an aircraft if it
| has a FADEC.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
| heyflyguy wrote:
| I'll be really curious to see what the reason for the deployment
| was. If it was listed elsewhere, I have missed it.
|
| Looking at the CAPS pulls on SR22## aircraft, the primary reasons
| are almost always either 1) pilot error or 2) engine issues.
|
| Getting to the point of being insurable in a VisionJet is likely
| no small feat, though I admit I have no idea what the minimums
| and/or ratings required are to obtain an affordable policy. I am
| expecting that a low-time pilot is not going to be able to afford
| the insurance.
|
| Turbine engines are notably reliable, so am curious if there was
| some other kind of issue.
|
| In any case, glad they are OK and am interested to see the NTSB
| report someday in the future as to the cause.
| zymhan wrote:
| Based on the preliminary report, it seems like bad weather?
|
| https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
| LamboJ wrote:
| While the official report on the reason will probably not come
| out for a while, there is some speculation that it was due to
| convective activity (thunderstorms) in the region. Someone on
| the Cirrus pilots forum looked up the weather at the time of
| the incident, and it looked like there was some decently heavy
| precipitation along the approach path.
| darknavi wrote:
| Using any parachute in stormy/rainy conditions sounds
| terrifying.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| The problem with Cirrus is the parachute. Insurance companies
| don't like it because instead of half or more of aircraft landing
| safely on a road or in a field, they are now all write offs. This
| then adds insurance premiums. We are also now in the position of
| having to do extra annual training (irrespective of experience)
| to get insurance because so many amateur pilots are flying Cirrus
| (I think it's the new V tail doctor killer, minus the killing).
| You have been warned: there are better aircraft out there imho.
| And I haven't even started on the flight controls (spring
| feedback is terrible), unstable yaw stability without yaw
| dampener (pax vomit profusely), and single power lever which
| decreases rpm with power resulting in an aircraft unable to
| (easily) slow down (without idle) which is normally done with
| prop braking. This results in energy problems similar to airlines
| where rookie pilots who cannot think ahead end up with too much
| energy. Also these modern long thin glider wing designs trying to
| get +5kts more can go to hell - they are getting so large it
| makes ground handling difficult; often longer than the airborne
| saving. If you want to get there faster, you save time on the
| ground. A decked out RV-10 is a good alternative.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Insurance companies have a great deal of experience in the
| business of pricing risk. If they could model the risk of
| insuring Cirrus aircraft as if they did not have parachutes,
| then a first-cut model for them with parachutes seems well
| within reach - just assume all in-flight incidents causing
| damage will be total losses!
| fibonacc wrote:
| Very interesting point but this chute is seriously making me
| consider taking flying lessons. Compared to motorcycle, plane
| is far safer. If an engine fails you can still glide to safety.
| Failing that deploy this chute.
|
| One additional feature safety would be terrain recovery where
| if it detects you are unconscious, the plane would
| automatically pull out of the dive or avoid terrain obstacles
| (like side of a mountain) and place itself in a holding
| pattern. Taking a step further, the plane would identify
| nearest field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the
| chutes to land itself.
|
| The last two layers are really nice to haves, its already
| incredible to have chutes readily available in private jets.
| Now its tough to argue that flying is inherently dangerous with
| these extra layers of last resort measures.
|
| Having said that I do think cheaper alternatives to this Cirrus
| jet already exists, nothing wrong with propeller planes either.
| My goal would be to be able to do bush flying, landing on top
| of mountain fields, camping for a while and then flying back
| home.
| cjbprime wrote:
| > Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest
| field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to
| land itself.
|
| This kind of feature exists, as Cirrus Safe Return Emergency
| Autoland:
|
| https://cirrusaircraft.com/story/introducing-safe-return-
| eme...
| wyager wrote:
| > Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer.
|
| I looked into the stats before I started flying and iirc this
| is not the case for private aircraft on a per-hour basis. In
| fact, private aircraft may have been riskier than motorcycle.
| bombcar wrote:
| The key is that something like 90% of pilot fatalities can
| be traced to pilot fault.
|
| 60% of motorcyclists becoming organ donors are not the
| motorcyclists fault.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| Both hobbies are equally unforgiving of mistakes
| dehrmann wrote:
| At least for commercial flights, takeoff and landing are the
| dangerous parts, and that's where the chute is least
| effective. I wonder if it's the same for general aviation.
| fibonacc wrote:
| I wonder for those situations where you experience
| catastrophic failures at low altitude situations where you
| can't deploy the chutes, whether some type of short burst
| rockets situated around the plane could activate to
| "cushion" the plane and orientate it to safety.
|
| Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large
| military planes.
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| As a general aviation pilot it's my opinion that takeoff
| and landing are indeed the most dangerous parts of a
| flight. Takeoff being the most dangerous of the two.
|
| Altitude is your friend.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| A wise man once told me: there are three things:
| Altitude, airspeed and brains. You need two of those
| things!
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| What you're after is a piper cub. Incredible short field
| takeoff and landing performance. You can land from an engine
| failure in a tiny amount of space, quite safely.
|
| The comments so far seem to presume the parachute is the only
| thing required to keep you safe. Statistically there's two
| engine failures every 100,000 hours in single engine pistons.
| That's incredibly low. Most pilots are lucky to make 1000
| hours in a lifetime.
|
| The thing that is actually going to kill most people is
| flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the side of a
| hill in bad weather, hitting wires, or mishandling on base
| turn and stalling.
|
| The previous comments about the parachute being ineffective
| for takeoff and landing are partially correct. The minimum
| altitude for successful CAPS (parachute) deployment is 500ft
| AGL, but it has been used much lower successfully (sorry
| don't have the figures but I think 200-300ft).
|
| They market the CAPS like it's the only thing required to
| make flying safe but in reality you are more likely to kill
| yourself than the airplane killing you; and a parachute won't
| stop that.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| I know of 7 engine failures with people I know and they all
| walked away safely after landing in a field. It's rare it
| ends up in a fatality, even without a parachute. Most are
| in fact twin engines that suffer an engine failure and
| mishandling results in Vmca (too slow for rudder to keep it
| straight), and they depart controlled flight and crash. 2
| engines is not safer.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Which plane of this class do you think is safest today?
|
| Also I don't understand your point about the insurance.
| mlyle wrote:
| If you pull the parachute, it's very likely to be a hull
| loss.
|
| There are a whole lot of scenarios where you might pull the
| parachute but have a decent chance of getting down safely.
|
| So, the parachute optimizes for occupant survival, but not
| survival of property. Insurers are in a conflicted scenario
| here: lowering injury claims but increasing property losses.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I wonder if they could add an airbag or something to
| cushion the landing and save the airframe.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| It's all about weight. These aircraft are optimising to
| the last kilogram. If you add 10kg more, that may be 1
| less pax, or 15 minutes (34 NM) range.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| The force of the chute opening is what kills the airframe
| kurupt213 wrote:
| I thought the p-51 was the doctor killer
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8
|
| -- demo - cool --
| rkagerer wrote:
| Has a CAPS save ever injured a bystander or destroyed expensive
| property like a house?
|
| (Not saying an uncontrolled landing couldn't do the same, just
| curious about the history)
| pmyteh wrote:
| Looking at the photos, at least one of them crushed a pickup
| truck coming down in a parking lot. It'd certainly be a bad day
| for a bystander if they couldn't get out of the way. But, as
| you say, an uncontrolled landing is no better, and with
| probable higher impact speeds and greater risk of fire.
| crooked-v wrote:
| For those wondering at the context, this is a company that builds
| well-liked small aircraft with the unique feature of having a
| last-resort emergency parachute for the entire plane built into
| the fuselage.
| johntb86 wrote:
| What sort of circumstances would they use this parachute?
| Engine failure? In a spin?
| heelix wrote:
| Yes to both, with the assumption a unpowered landing is not a
| better option. The straps are part of the air frame - so the
| parachute more or less turns this into something disposable.
| Spin recovery is tricky enough I don't believe they have a
| procedure that does not involve the shoot.
|
| A photo from the prop version, post deployment. You can see
| how the straps are embedded in. Neat system.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/L54qyE7.jpg
| petesergeant wrote:
| let's say your wing detaches...
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
| rkagerer wrote:
| Was it determined why the wing detached? (This was a DIY
| airplane kit right?)
| ehnto wrote:
| That was both a very bad day and a fantastic day to be
| flying that particular plane.
| _s wrote:
| Nearly always in the event of an engine failure or an
| unrecoverable attitude; which may be a spin.
|
| Cirrus's transition training emphasises pulling the chute -
| the seats and airframe are designed to absorb the vertical
| impact and protect the people on board. Most other aircraft
| you learn to pick a field to glide into, or do spin / unusual
| attitude training to recover from them. The chute is
| essentially a get out of jail free card for when you don't
| have the options for any of those things.
| Gracana wrote:
| Engine failure, running out of fuel, stalls, spins, midair
| collisions, disorientation, etc. Cirrus has a history of CAPS
| deployments, linked in the article and copied here:
| https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History
| hackitup7 wrote:
| Very impressive to see how many people were able to walk
| away from these incidents, I wonder what the counts of
| injury or worse would look like without this system?
|
| Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of
| incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced
| pilots?
| bombcar wrote:
| Small plane pilots are generally "not as experienced as
| they could be" and so Cirrus pilots are trained "when in
| doubt pop it out" as you might be able to successfully
| crash land or make it to a landing field, but the chute
| doesn't work below a certain altitude.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Lots of ATP certified folks end up in NTSB reports. At
| some point, it boils down to smaller aircrafts being more
| at the mercy of weather.
| jandrese wrote:
| This incident looks like it may be one of those cases.
| The pilot was on the glide slope to the airport when he
| runs into a microburst and decides to pull the lever
| before getting pushed down into the lake.
| bombcar wrote:
| Not sure the mechanics of a microburst that would
| prohibit the plane getting through but not push the plane
| and parachute into the lake.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I've seen way too many episodes of Air Crash
| Investigations.
|
| A microburst could easily take out a full-sized airline
| at low altitude. That's why airports and planes have
| equipment to detect air shear so they don't fly into it.
| Small planes are far more affected by weather and don't
| typical have radar or safety systems like flight envelope
| protection.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of
| incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced
| pilots?
|
| There's also less redundancy in the plane overall so if
| something goes wrong it's more likely to lead to serious
| issues. A large commercial plane has multiple pilots,
| engines, power sources, control surface systems,
| computers, sensors, etc.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Also they fly above the weather and have more
| instruments.
| ehnto wrote:
| General Aviation/Private Aviation is as dangerous as
| riding a motorcycle, per hour of participation. At least
| the last time I checked the statistics. It might have
| improved with navigation technology and flight planning
| software becoming more affordable.
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| A lot of GA aircraft are also decades old and lacking
| newer technology
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| The danger of riding a motorcycle is overstated, as those
| stats take into account riders who didn't wear safety
| gear and/or rode inebriated.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| Yeah but to be fair, aviation statistics would also be
| 10% as bad if they excluded people who didn't fly into
| bad weather, took off overweight, didn't have enough fuel
| in the tanks, ran out of light or were too fatigued, or
| couldn't say 'no' to tasking or an unserviceable
| aircraft.
| kylecordes wrote:
| I am not a pilot, not even a little bit;
|
| But I was under the impression that pilot training has a
| lot of attention on recovery from a stall or spin, and
| unless at low altitude, those are generally recoverable (in
| a small aircraft). Would love for someone with actual
| knowledge to weigh in, thanks!
| cmurf wrote:
| Stall avoidance and recovery is mandatory training for
| certification, arguably mandatory training for make/model
| checkout even if there's no type rating required.
|
| Stall spin training is only required for flight
| instructor certification. While anyone can do this
| training, FARs require both instructor and student are
| wearing a parachute, unless it's for CFI training.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the US system but stall recovery
| training is mandatory in Australia. Seems to be in FAA
| syllabus too:
|
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/
| tra...
|
| Spin recovery different issue.
| melony wrote:
| Small plane PPL pilots are not always as
| experienced/well-trained as full time commercial airline
| pilots.
| ehnto wrote:
| It can take time and altitude to recover a spin, and low
| altitude maneuvers are often where unintentional spins
| occur. That said, I don't know what the minimum altitude
| for a parachute deployment is. That'd be important.
| atdrummond wrote:
| I believe 2000 feet unless Cirrus has changed their
| recommendations.
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| It's 500ft in the flight manual
| krisoft wrote:
| There are no minumums per say. If you need it pull it.
| The higher you pull it the better it can work. They say
| the demonstrated parameters are: 400 feet in straight and
| level flight and 920 feet in spin.
|
| https://flyasg.co.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/06/CAPS_Guide.p...
| p_l wrote:
| It's not unique to Cirrus, but Cirrus is probably most well
| known for having made bigger and heavier planes with BRS
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| What is BRS?
| krisoft wrote:
| Ballistic Recovery System. It is a parachute afixed to the
| airframe which can be deployed by the pilot. It is named
| that because the parachute is pulled out of its housing by
| a small solid-fueled rocket.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
| chinathrow wrote:
| The manufacturer of those rescue systems.
|
| https://brsaerospace.com/
| lisper wrote:
| > It's not unique to Cirrus
|
| Not any more, but Cirrus introduced this technology to
| general aviation.
| tristanb wrote:
| The BRS was produced and patented by another company, then
| purchased by Cirrus who were the first to include it as
| standard equipment. But not the first in aviation.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| It's no longer considered a last-resort measure. Cirrus
| training now says to consider it as a first resort.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Indeed, you need to consider CAPS early because it requires
| altitude, in a plane with a problem you are presumably losing
| altitude, maybe rapidly, so it won't be long before you can't
| use CAPS. By then you need to have either decided to use it,
| or picked some other course of action so that you don't need
| it.
|
| Unlike the rocket ejector seat in a fighter jet, CAPS cannot
| save you very close to the ground. The ejector seat in a
| modern fighter is rated for zero/zero ie you could pull the
| handle from a plane that's just sat on the ground motionless,
| it would still eject you upward and you'd probably survive.
| CAPS is intended to be used at two thousand feet AGL (ie
| above the ground)
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > CAPS is intended to be used at two thousand feet AGL (ie
| above the ground)
|
| As another person commented[1], they claim it to work as
| low as 400ft (straight and level flight, 920ft during a
| spin). Much higher than a combat jet, but not too bad
| either.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32802182
| imglorp wrote:
| As a glider pilot I find this mindset disappointing. Every
| aviator must have a constantly updating array of "what if"
| situations and planned responses: "Right now, where's my best
| landing spot and how would I get lined up for that?" etc. It
| leads to a chess-like thinking ahead mindset which brings all
| kinds of benefits. "Whelp I'll just pull the lever if
| something goes wrong" robs you of that.
|
| Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents
| where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder
| skills were contributory.
| krisoft wrote:
| You can find it dissapointing, but they found that
| statistics supports this kind of emphasis in the parachute
| training.
|
| Obviously it is not true that people use it as a first
| resort. Landing with wheels on the runway is the first
| resort. As supported by the fact that vastly more cirruses
| land that way.
|
| Initially they trained it as a last resort. Something you
| only do when you get mated in that chess game you mention.
| What they found is that pilots were reluctant to pull the
| lever. They know it totals the aircraft and it is hard to
| see the point where all is lost with 100% certainty. Pilots
| crashed planes where the chute could have saved them.
|
| So they changed the emphasis. They now tell the pilots in
| their training that if they are ever in any doubt they
| should pull the lever. The people on board will walk away
| and the plane is the problem of the insurer. After this
| change in the training they have seen that pilots were
| pulling a lever a lot more and a lot more lives were saved.
|
| > Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing
| incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick
| and rudder skills were contributory.
|
| Absolutely. There are a some general aviation pilots who
| perhaps should not be flying. I don't know how the people
| organising the parachute training at Cirrus could help with
| that though.
| k1w1 wrote:
| The thought process for out-landing a glider and landing a
| Cirrus in a field is very different.
|
| A typical glider might touch down at 40mph, a Cirrus SR22
| at 70mph. The glider might weigh 800lbs and the Cirrus
| 3600lbs. The energy at touchdown (remember velocity is
| squared!) is radically different. Also keep in mind that
| the wheels are only about 15" in diameter. 70mph in a
| typical farm field on 15" wheels is not going end well
| unless the field is perfectly smooth and firm. Not to
| mention the challenges of not hitting power lines, fences
| and cows while going significantly faster on approach
| (final speed is more like 100mph).
|
| The parachute is there to take a situation where survival
| is a real gamble and turn it into a situation where
| survival is probable (almost 100% so far).
| ramesh31 wrote:
| > Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing
| incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick
| and rudder skills were contributory.
|
| The same reason modern high performance singles like the
| TBM are known as "dentist killers". The profusion of
| technology that eliminated those stick and rudder skills
| has led to a lot of inexperienced pilots getting into
| situations they shouldn't ever be in.
| _s wrote:
| Some more context - this the first deployment of the BRS system
| in their flagship; the Vision Jet.
|
| The Vision Jet is also the only turbine (jet) engine powered
| aircraft with such a system.
|
| It also boasts the Garmin Safe Return system; where the
| autopilot lands the aircraft in case of Pilot incapacitation -
| doing everything from radio calls, selecting the appropriate
| airport and runway, flying the approach and landing to a stop.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Are the radio calls one-way, or can it understand directions
| from the air traffic control tower (e.g. Don't use Runway 6,
| Runway 8 is clear)? How's that work, voice recognition or
| teletype or something?
| Syonyk wrote:
| Any reasonably sophisticated jet (of which this is clearly
| one) will have access to more or less realtime weather
| data, as well as NOTAMs (notices to airmen) regarding
| closed runways and such.
|
| I'm not familiar with the system's details, but I would
| assume that it would pick the nearest towered airport with
| emergency services that met the requirements of the landing
| performance. Landing autonomously on a strip in the middle
| of nowhere, with nobody around, isn't likely to be
| particularly useful in an emergency unless the aircraft is
| no longer airworthy - and even then, if you can keep it in
| the air, going somewhere big with emergency services is a
| better idea.
|
| A towered airport will have air traffic control (not all
| small strips do), and if the jet sets the transponder code
| to indicate an emergency, and is making blind radio calls
| about intent as to what runway it's going to land on, ATC
| will then clear the airport for the incoming emergency, and
| keep everyone else out of the way - and roll the trucks to
| meet it once it stops. I doubt it will bother getting off
| the runway autonomously - just come to a safe stop, shut
| down, and then it's someone else's problem to taxi it off.
|
| Aviation is somewhat nice in that way. Emergency traffic
| has priority. If I were to be flying a Cessna 152 along
| Lake Michigan and had an emergency with O'Hare being the
| nearest airport, I've got priority, and the oceanic heavies
| will get out of the way until it's resolved. Now, you may
| have some serious questions about what the problem was, but
| this is the sort of stuff resolved after the fact, on the
| ground.
| dweekly wrote:
| Pretty sure the system doesn't parse ATC audio but as other
| posters have noted can use machine readable METARs and
| other data to get a sense for weather and available
| runways. (Note that the system does NOT parse NOTAMs yet
| per https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-
| autola...) Beyond that am guessing that it declares its
| intentions and hopes ATC can pave a clear path. They are
| generally exceptionally good at doing this for aircraft in
| distress; just squawk 7700, state your intentions on 121.5,
| they will make it happen - you're allowed to do literally
| anything and violate every rule in the book if it's
| required for safety of flight. You can land on an active
| military base or a major commercial airport runway if you
| need to. Mind you, there may be some paperwork to fill out
| on the ground after, but while you're in the pickle
| everyone is there to help.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| If a pilot were to call mayday and say they're landing on
| runway 6 everyone would be trying to ensure runway 6 was
| clear. The only way 6 would be blocked is if there was
| something already on it that couldn't be moved in time.
| Think of a mayday call as the lights and sirens of the sky.
| mumumu wrote:
| I think this apply to any kind of emergency. Planes can
| squawk a codes to signal emergency w/o radio and get the
| controller attention.
|
| Mayday call is used on life threatening situations.
| tialaramex wrote:
| One way. The purpose is so that other pilots are aware that
| there's a problem. In a lot of US airspace there is no air
| traffic control, and most strips do not have anything
| resembling a control tower.
| Animats wrote:
| Has Safe Return yet been used in an emergency? I've seen the
| demo videos, but haven't seen any news reports of it being
| used for real.
|
| It's not wasted hardware even if not used. The aircraft
| already has a flight control system capable of flying from
| waypoint to waypoint and landing. Safe Return adds a layer of
| software able to compute and enter a course, while squawking
| Mayday and playing canned emergency messages on the guard
| frequency. New hardware is just a radio altimeter for use in
| landing, and the ability to lower the landing gear under
| computer control.
| dweekly wrote:
| Didn't this have to add a lot more automation that goes
| beyond what a typical Cirrus with Perspective/Perspective+
| would offer? Not just the radar altimeter and automated
| gear extension but autothrottle, flaps, braking, an auto-
| flare, etc...
| nopzor wrote:
| also worth mentioning - the vision jet is afaik the only
| single jet passenger jet that is fully certified.
| stevehawk wrote:
| I think you meant to say "single pilot passenger jet" that
| is fully certified, and if so, that statement is not
| correct. The Phenom, Citation, and several others are.
| atdrummond wrote:
| Single engine is more likely what the poster meant than
| single pilot, no?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| For a layman, what does certification mean? Certified for
| what?
| captainoats wrote:
| Certification is the process of getting an aircraft
| design/model approved by the FAA for sale/use. There are
| 3 phases for GA commercially available aircraft, type
| certification (design approved), production certification
| (manufacturing approved), and airworthiness certification
| (plane tested, and ready for sale to the public)
|
| Usually when someone says a plane has received its
| certification they mean it's 'airworthiness
| certification', so the final approval by the FAA.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Each commercially ised or sold aircraft has to come from
| a certified Desogn Organisation, has to be built by a
| certified Production Organisation (in most cases the same
| _company_ , aerospace legallish Airbus and Boeing have a
| DO and a PO which arw separate entities as far as
| authorities are converned), needs an Type Certificate
| (achieved after successful flight testing and to be
| redone if there are configuration and design changes) and
| has to be maintained by a certified maintenance
| organisation and operated by a certified operator
| (continued airworthymess is a operator thing, just don't
| ask me any details on that, I work on the PO and touched
| some maintenance stuff in my life so far).
|
| Usually, EASA and FAA cross certify, making it easier to
| get one if you have the other already. Fascinating stuff,
| aerospace certification.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I suppose GP meant to say "single engine non-turboprop
| turbofan/turbojet private jet that are FAA certified to
| operate in the US with appropriate civilian licenses".
|
| And while there are countless single engine jet planes
| and many small business jets without lavatory, there
| indeed aren't many ("jet" engine && single engine &&
| business jet) designs, let alone civilian type certified
| models.
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| > It also boasts the Garmin Safe Return system; where the
| autopilot lands the aircraft in case of Pilot incapacitation
| - doing everything from radio calls, selecting the
| appropriate airport and runway, flying the approach and
| landing to a stop.
|
| But does it run Doom?
| threatripper wrote:
| > where the autopilot lands the aircraft in case of Pilot
| incapacitation
|
| OEFGR could have used that. Their autopilot just continued to
| fly straight until they ran out of fuel and spiraled down
| into the sea.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| It needs to be manually activated.
| nopzor wrote:
| awesome to see the first real world example of a caps parachute
| deployment on the vision jet working out well.
|
| the caps parachute results in "a good day for the passengers --
| walk away, bad day for the insurance company -- plane will never
| fly again"
|
| the vision jet also has a "safe return" feature that will 100%
| autonomously land at the nearest suitable airport.
|
| both brs and safe return are designed to be initiated by a
| passenger, in the event of pilot incapacitation.
|
| i've had the pleasure of flying on a vision jet before -- it's a
| really cool aircraft that flies almost as fast and high as much
| more expensive jets. and can be easily (realistically) flown by a
| single pilot.
| TylerE wrote:
| Actually, the insurance company would rather you pull the chute
| too... an airframe is a lot cheaper than multiple wrongful
| death lawsuits.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| Can you sue your own insurance company for wrongful death?
| piperswe wrote:
| No, but if you're carrying passengers their families can
| sue your liability insurance provider
| JCM9 wrote:
| It's a cool plane but very much does not "fly almost as fast"
| as traditional jets. It's super slow and sluggish in that
| regard and causes headaches for ATC because it can't fly as
| fast or climb as fast as other jets. Think everyone cruising
| down a highway with nice spacing doing 65 MPH and then one
| person is doing 45 MPH... that's what ATC has to work around.
| CitizenKane wrote:
| It's in a strange spot because practically every other single
| engine jet aircraft is military, and I imagine it's tricky to
| drop a bigger engine in the vision jet without sacrificing
| cabin/cargo space. I liked the other comment comparing it to
| a turboprop. I'd say it's performance is something like
| turboprop+ but it's clearly not in the same category as other
| small passenger jets.
| 7952 wrote:
| Agree it's awesome. Although the cruising speed is around 300
| knots where a small bizjet would be over 400. That is more
| comparable to a fast propeller plane.
| kloch wrote:
| > i've had the pleasure of flying on a vision jet before --
| it's a really cool aircraft that flies almost as fast and high
| as much more expensive jets
|
| It's a really cool aircraft but It's nowhere close to the speed
| or service ceiling of most private jets.
|
| Here's Citationmax departing LAX in a vision jet. It's a
| beautiful video to watch but it seems like he is struggling to
| reach the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) altitudes for
| each waypoint, only able to do about 100 KIAS in the climb.
|
| https://youtu.be/DVXob_B3Cck
|
| Contrast that to his later videos in the Citation CJ3 which
| looks like a SpaceX rocket in comparison.
|
| Even Premier 1 Driver's smallish jet drastically outperforms
| the SF50.
| V-eHGsd_ wrote:
| > It's a really cool aircraft but It's nowhere close to the
| speed or service ceiling of most private jets.
|
| there's a recent story of a vision jet pilot who's been
| putting "treat me like a turboprop, I don't mind" in the
| comments of flight plans to let controllers know what they
| can expect performance wise from him (and to make them
| laugh).
| rafale wrote:
| I am sure the plane can fly again on most cases, they just
| don't want the liability and they want to put "pressure" on the
| pilots to only deploy it when necessary.
|
| A Cirrus pilot that loses an engine at a safe altitude will not
| think of deploying it because the plane will be gone.
| nocoiner wrote:
| I don't think that's the way insurance companies look at it -
| as I recall, I think they actually waive the deductible in
| the event of a chute deployment to encourage use of the
| system. Paying for an airframe is a lot cheaper than the
| inevitable wrongful death lawsuits.
| JCM9 wrote:
| Cirrus had a bad safety record when the aircraft first came out
| (this was the SR series). In essence it was a similar story to
| the "doctor killer" mantra that plagued Bonanzas early on...
| essentially pilots with more money that flying skill. The SR
| series are nice aircraft but also not "docile" relative to other
| single engine pistons. One can get into trouble real quick if
| flying outside the numbers and envelope.
|
| Cirrus really revamped their training and that had a big impact.
| They also changed training to really emphasize chute pulls, which
| had probably led to some hair trigger pilot pulls but has also
| saved lives.
|
| Will be interesting to see what happened here when all the
| details come out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-11 23:00 UTC)