The Cirrus statistic: Never when the chute was pulled within the parameters occupants were hurt. Around 140 were saved. The lowest successful pull was done at 426 ft AGL, recorded by the Garmin Perspective.
Personally I would land below 600 ft, but pull at 700.
“The Cirrus statistic: Never when the chute was pulled within the parameters occupants were hurt”
I remember the Cirrus that burned to a crisp while descending under the chute. The occupants died in that one. I can’t remember whether the chute was pulled within the parameters.
airways wrote:
“The Cirrus statistic: Never when the chute was pulled within the parameters occupants were hurt”I remember the Cirrus that burned to a crisp while descending under the chute. The occupants died in that one. I can’t remember whether the chute was pulled within the parameters.
That particular accident was a mid air collision between a Cirrus SR20 and a Piper Pawnee towing a Glider close to Boulder, Colorado whereby the SR20 impacted with the Pawnee. The Glider pilot saw the impending collision and released the tow line, flew through the fireball which happened at the moment of impact.
Alexis wrote:
The Cirrus statistic: Never when the chute was pulled within the parameters occupants were hurt. Around 140 were saved.
My own statistic: Never when I piloted a SEP anybody on board was hurt. And I did it over 140 times.
Or I could go even further: Never when I piloted a SEP with an engine past TBO anybody on board was hurt.
Does it statistically tell anything about safety of flying a SEP with an engine past TBO? No, it certainly doesn’t
Don’t get me wrong. I believe a Cirrus is a fine airplane. Fine for it’s mission profile and fine for a certain cohort of pilots.
But a C182 is also a fine aircraft. Now, how many lives were saved thanks to it’s slow stall speed, robust construction or strong landing gear? We will never know. My guess is that the number might be way bigger than 140 or whatever Cirrus claims
In my opinion talking about a precise number of lives saved by some kind of device is hypocrisy because usually we don’t really know how real and deadly danger was.
“The Edge… there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
The first law of aviation forums is that every discussion eventually turns into a Cirrus chute discussion…
PS: The Cirrus has a chute because it cannot get out of a spin!
achimha wrote:
PS: The Cirrus has a chute because it cannot get out of a spin!
Please don’t do this again….
Whenever i write about the successful Cirrus chute pulls it feels like i push a button. Always the same prejudice and arrogance. I would still use the chute in every case of engine failure in which i could not easily reach a runway. Simply because it is the safest way.
But this topic needs no discussion, the facts are very clear on this: Many accidents which could not have been survived in other survived in other SEPs ended without even light injuries in Cirrus aircraft, among them at least 25 pulls over densely populated areas.
Alexis wrote:
I would still use the chute in every case of engine failure in which i could not easily reach a runway. Simply because it is the safest way.
That’s a very strong statement. An airplane can be landed safely off runway. Can’t say for Cirrus but my guess is that It’s not that much different.
Alexis wrote:
Many accidents which could not have been survived in other survived in other SEPs ended without even light injuries in Cirrus aircraft, among them at least 25 pulls over densely populated areas.
You can land an airplane in a a densely populated area and walk away.
MedEwok wrote:
Please, can we stop detracting from lenthamens excellent forced landing
I’m trying to learn from his experience. In my previous life I executed dozens of outlandingns in gliders. Looking out for spots suitable for putting your glider down becomes a habit, you do it subconsciously. And when low, below a certain threshold, you adapt your trajectory accordingly. In a powered airplane I somehow lost this habit, my brain must be thinking that as long as there is enough of gas everything will be fine…
Robin_253
Wrong. Most of the engine failures over US cities would have ended fatally almost for sure. An isolated case cannot prove the opposite. It happened about five times – without any fatalities.
And even over the countryside the chute is safer than the landing, it has been proven statistically by now.
