I'm trying to get my head around 126 "saves" requiring the chute, spread out over 20+ years and 9,000 aircraft. Is that a lot, or about what you'd expect? I guess you'd have to know the flying hours and number of takeoffs to compare with other light aircraft. Does having the chute encourage risk-taking or inattention to detail? (I've asked the same question about the avalanche airbag vests used by some backcountry skiers.) And, as others note, Cirrus and regulators should certainly look at these engine failures to see if there's a recurring issue.
There's something going on here engine-wise. Those three failures are two more than I knew of in ten years of flying around the Central Valley from Sac Exec. And the third wasn't an engine failure so much as it was some idiot who put the baffles in backwards on my Grumman Tiger's engine, a fact I discovered taking out of Fresno headed for VNY, but by the time I was at 3,000 feet the cylinder head temps were at the top of the yellow headed for red. I throttled back and saw Porterville airport off to the right. Fortunately my flight instructor had taught me to fly the Tiger with the throttle chopped from the point of entry to downwind, all the way to touchdown, so I was very familiar with turning it into a glider. Set up best descent and arrived over Porterville at 1800', spiraled down to pattern altitude and then put it on the ground. The mechanic just shook his head when he looked in the engine compartment.
But three failures over such a short period, there's something more than an idiot misplacing the baffles.
Not just the minimum altitude, but what is the maximum altitude you can deploy the chute? Too low is too late, and too high would mean you may drift further. Correct? (Not a pilot) What does the manual say?
Yes, I'd say it's time for Cirrus to take a magnifying glass to these engine problems. Saving lives is the number one priority, of course, but there is also the matter of the outrageously expensive vehicle that may or may not be reusable.
I once talked with a colleague who was a former military pilot; I said I had heard that a good landing is one you can walk away from. He said, "Yes, and a great landing is one where you can still use the airplane."
Jim While I heartily support your personal evidence of the safety of flying, the sustained affect of Boeing bean counters does give me pause.
Given infeasibility of installing CAPS on all recent Boeing planes (or designing a basket to catch all the parts that fall off, it makes me ponder the various meanings of Boing and Boing Boing. (Some are a bit cruder than others).
Personally, right now I’d prefer to fly Airbus than Boing Boing Boeing. (Of course, in 1954, when British Comets were disintegrating over Rome, there was the sterling alternative of Boeing, with no Airbus.)
But will the dog (or the 2 year old) agree to get on the plane again?
I'm trying to get my head around 126 "saves" requiring the chute, spread out over 20+ years and 9,000 aircraft. Is that a lot, or about what you'd expect? I guess you'd have to know the flying hours and number of takeoffs to compare with other light aircraft. Does having the chute encourage risk-taking or inattention to detail? (I've asked the same question about the avalanche airbag vests used by some backcountry skiers.) And, as others note, Cirrus and regulators should certainly look at these engine failures to see if there's a recurring issue.
There's something going on here engine-wise. Those three failures are two more than I knew of in ten years of flying around the Central Valley from Sac Exec. And the third wasn't an engine failure so much as it was some idiot who put the baffles in backwards on my Grumman Tiger's engine, a fact I discovered taking out of Fresno headed for VNY, but by the time I was at 3,000 feet the cylinder head temps were at the top of the yellow headed for red. I throttled back and saw Porterville airport off to the right. Fortunately my flight instructor had taught me to fly the Tiger with the throttle chopped from the point of entry to downwind, all the way to touchdown, so I was very familiar with turning it into a glider. Set up best descent and arrived over Porterville at 1800', spiraled down to pattern altitude and then put it on the ground. The mechanic just shook his head when he looked in the engine compartment.
But three failures over such a short period, there's something more than an idiot misplacing the baffles.
Not just the minimum altitude, but what is the maximum altitude you can deploy the chute? Too low is too late, and too high would mean you may drift further. Correct? (Not a pilot) What does the manual say?
Yes, I'd say it's time for Cirrus to take a magnifying glass to these engine problems. Saving lives is the number one priority, of course, but there is also the matter of the outrageously expensive vehicle that may or may not be reusable.
I once talked with a colleague who was a former military pilot; I said I had heard that a good landing is one you can walk away from. He said, "Yes, and a great landing is one where you can still use the airplane."
Jim While I heartily support your personal evidence of the safety of flying, the sustained affect of Boeing bean counters does give me pause.
Given infeasibility of installing CAPS on all recent Boeing planes (or designing a basket to catch all the parts that fall off, it makes me ponder the various meanings of Boing and Boing Boing. (Some are a bit cruder than others).
Personally, right now I’d prefer to fly Airbus than Boing Boing Boeing. (Of course, in 1954, when British Comets were disintegrating over Rome, there was the sterling alternative of Boeing, with no Airbus.)
Wow. What a thing. Three of these within two weeks.
Glad everyone is okay.
And thank goodness for the “outside-the-box” thinking.
Still would like to connect as per note earlier.
Peace!
Carey Sipp
csipppaces@icloud.com
Jim: What's the minimum altitude at which the parachute can be deployed and still be effective?