Missing Aircraft

TR · Post by TR » Fri Apr 09, 2004 11:57 am

We were on a charter last night from Winnipeg to Vancouver, when ATC asked if if were able to relieve a Jazz Dash 8 circling a possible crash site about 34 miles east of Kelowna. We agreed and were given the last known coordinates. We circled for about an hour before the Buffalo arrived. ATC told us it was a Cirrus Aicraft with 4 people on board. It had a parachute, and had heard from the pilot after it had landed. However, we weren't able to find them or get any radio contact. We flew over 2 hours later and the Buffalo still had not located the missing airplane. Does anyone have an update? Our prayers go out to them.

TR

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:16 pm

Here's something:

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprov ... 50d5cad129

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:22 pm

You have to wonder what kind of plane your flying when you need to have a parachute installed. It just screams I'm going to down one of these days.

Just my two cents

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Sorta. It was in one of the flight mags.

The theory is that it's worse to have it, because pilots will become lax and less effort will be put into a recovery or they'll do more dangerous missions since the mind set will be "lets go in icing, worst thing that'll happen is that I'll deploy my shoot"..

cloudmind29 · Post by **cloudmind29** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:43 pm

Plus you can barely use it. I think the wings have to be level and there is also speed restrictions. It is very limited when you can pop the chute. The only time I can see it being useful is in harsh terrain, like forrest covered mountains.

corn-shoot · Post by **corn-shoot** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:51 pm

That's a negative, the ballastic recovery system can be deployed in various emergency scenarios incuding spins. Now there is some validity, to the idea of trying to avoid these situations, but anywho, the system is effective.

bandaid · Post by **bandaid** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:55 pm

Good or bad, I know of four people that are really happy that the owner spent the money on it. I couldn't even emagine what was going through their minds for that slow decent to the ground, must have seemed to take forever.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:54 pm

Some bright ideas work and some don't. I guess this is one bright idea that worked.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:59 pm

Someone asked what type of AC needs one of these shoots? any single engine piston if you ask me. Lets be honest, you lose your engine in the day time and there's a suitable landing surface great. What happens if it's at night or over some remote spot with nothing but trees, rocks or water? personally I'd like to at least have the option of blowing a shoot - as a last ditch resort.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 8:45 pm

My sentiments exactly KAG. If I have the option of flying it into a safe landing it's a no brainer; but if all you're looking at is rocks, trees or something equally unappealing, it's a hell of a nice backup to have!

MurtsAir · Post by **MurtsAir** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:34 am

Thats BS about Speed restriction with the Chutes on the Cirrus. it deploys in stages and is controlled by a computer that knows the Speed the AC is traveling and how to deploy the chute. Ive flown the Cirrus SR22 and talk about sweet machine but for half a million i could think of some other toys to buy first.

snapped · Post by **snapped** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:05 am

cyyz wrote:Sorta. It was in one of the flight mags.

The theory is that it's worse to have it, because pilots will become lax and less effort will be put into a recovery or they'll do more dangerous missions since the mind set will be "lets go in icing, worst thing that'll happen is that I'll deploy my shoot"..

How is that a valid point? Putting myself it that situation I would still fly the a/c the sameway, pulling the chute would a last resort. I think most would agree. Even though the A/C might have a chute, there would still be major damage after it smacks the ground.

Intentional Left Bank · Sat Apr 10, 2004 7:29 am

Here's the story:

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmonton ... 9ce8b2bcae

corn-shoot · Post by **corn-shoot** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 10:11 am

The nice thing about the parachute is that there's a relatively in tact airplane so we can all point fingers. Hooooray!

And you knock the Ballastic Recovery System!?

OW · Post by OW » Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:51 pm

Now after reading the article in the Edmonton Journal, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that if you buy a Cirrus, you had better be sure you have a parachute.

The first one in the states had a wing separate from the aircraft. Occupant(s) survived. This guy was flying on autopilot and said tha for some reason the fuel was not burning evenly from both sides and the aircraft went into a spin (or something like that) and was uncontrollable.

So I guess if we are going to have wings letting go and aircraft that can't be controlled if the fuel tanks have un uneven load, I guess we better install parachutes so the passengers can survive.

I am glad to hear that all are well from this incident, but I hope they choose an aircraft that flies when they consider replacing it.

You would have to be doing something pretty stupid to lose a wing from a C172, and I know from experience that they will fly just fine with one tank full and the other just about empty (yes I have made mistakes too).

It would be interesting to hear about the other times when the chutes have been deployed in Cirrus Aircraft.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 10:58 pm

I understand the debate on the 'chute issue! Any way you look at it, $200,000 USD to $400,000 USD for one of these Cirrus machines means that experienced pilots are not the ones cruising around in these planes on weekends!!

Didn't they used to call the Piper Malibu and Mirage the Doctor and Lawyer killers??? The top of the line Cirrus boasts a cruise TAS if 180, fully digital glass cockpit, 310hp engine, etc!

I believe Cirrus looked at their 'target market' (folks with megabucks) and realized that the majority of them are recreational pilots with next to no experience! They know the Cirrus is a quick machine...hence installing the parachutes!!

This guy who went down near YLW the other day said that the reason he chose Cirrus was the 'chute! I saw an interview with him on TV an hour ago. He was an old bloke, and was going on about a "spiral", then a "spin", and then a "flat spin"...sounded like he was a little unsure about what happened to him!!

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:00 pm

By the way:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:49 am

Isn't it ok that you have a extra piece of safety equipment on board? Esp for single engine over the rocks. Mind of an engineer, Heart of a pilot. Good slogan, I like it.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:04 am

I am sure that if I am wrong, I will be corrected. But is the Cirrus considered to be an amateur built airplane? Like you do not go down to the Cirrus store and have them gift wrap the bright red one. They sell you a kit and you basically make it yourself. That way the airplane does not have to meet the certification standards of a store-bought airplane so such things as a ballistic parachute can be installed and just hope it works when needed. I seem to recall the reason for the chute is that the airplane does not meet the stall speed requirements of FAR 23 (61 kts). and therefore a forced landing has a lower chance of survival. The wing is a high speed wing. High cruise speed and high stall speed. In my humble opinion there are two types who build these airplanes, those who love the challenge of designing, building and flying something unconventional and those who cannot be bothered to follow conventional wisdom. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:28 am

The Cirrus SR-20 in the article is a fully certified airplane but, yes, the company did start out originally building kits. The web site for them is:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com

The first accident in the states wasn't a wing falling off from the report I read but an aileron seperating on the first flight after an AD was completed on the aileron and was considered a maintanence error (this may have been updated...I read a very early report).

groundtoflightdeck · Post by **groundtoflightdeck** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:55 pm

This will be the 2nd successful parachute deployment in the Cirrus'. I was able to see the first one in Duluth. They are able to bring the CofA back after $100,000 of work. They tell you bluntly in the warranty briefing that it is to be used to save your life, an engine failure is handled the same as a 172, but if you clip someone in the cirucit then you can pull it and float to the ground. I wondered about them when we first started operating the Cirrus but now I like having it behind me being there is no 2nd engine.

Cheers- GTF

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:38 pm

Sojourner, Opportunity, Spirit, and now Cirrus. Did the airbags deploy as well?

OW · Post by OW » Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:23 am

I would not be opposed to having a parachute as a back up system just in case the engine failure that I may someday have to deal with happens where there is no "suitable" field to effect a forced "landing".

If the first in the US was a maintenance issue, then, so be it, but it seems that there still may be a problem with this aircraft type. (not sure)

From reading accident reports (US), it seems that American pilots are taught that if there is no paved strip or highway available the only option is to die, unless you have a parachute.

Would I use a parachute if I had one? Yes, but only if there was no field (where I might still severly damage the aircraft), and the decision would have to be made well above the manufacturers suggested minimum height for deployment of the chute.

The most important result of a forced landing is the survival of the occupants of the aircraft, not how pretty the plane will look on the pavement after the event.

groundtoflightdeck · Post by **groundtoflightdeck** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:58 am

I don't really think that is the American mentality on engine failures. If they are somewhere they can land then they would. I think any owner would put it onto a halfway decent feild before they bought the 100K recertification on a chute deployment.

The first depolyment was in Texas and was a control surface issue.

Here are a couple videos of the deployment.

http://learn.aero.und.edu/htmlez/Files/ ... 0Chute.mpa

http://learn.aero.und.edu/htmlez/Files/ ... 0chute.mpg

http://learn.aero.und.edu/htmlez/Files/ ... /drift.mpg

Enjoy -GTF

172pilot · Post by **172pilot** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:24 pm

I think every single should have a parachute. Not just for an engine failure over unforgiving terrain but also in the case of a spin or unusual attitude that someone can't recover from. Not to mention a midair collision and/or loss of flight control surfaces. I've read a few bad stories regarding PC12's that could have used a chute to save some lives. I don't think this is a matter of it being a good idea or not or should carry a stigma of being a poor pilot that requires a chute. It should be mandatory. It's there for an accident - something life or death regardless of how well you can fly an airplane. Much like airbags on a car. Any element of safety is always a bonus.