Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

flyingmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#101

Post by captainoats »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #68
stevehawk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For a layman, what does certification mean? Certified for what?

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#102

Post by wyager »

fibonacc wrote: post #94
dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #93

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 do…

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)…

> 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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#103

Post by theflyingelvis »

dehrmann wrote: post #95
fibonacc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#104

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

fibonacc wrote: post #94
dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #93

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 do…

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)…

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#105

Post by bombcar »

wyager wrote: post #102
fibonacc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

> 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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#106

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #104
fibonacc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

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 l…

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#107

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

theflyingelvis wrote: post #103
dehrmann wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

A wise man once told me: there are three things: Altitude, airspeed and brains. You need two of those things!

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#108

Post by HPsquared »

mlyle wrote: post #97
bilsbie wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which plane of this class do you think is safest today? Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.

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.

I wonder if they could add an airbag or something to cushion the landing and save the airframe.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#109

Post by littlestymaar »

tialaramex wrote: post #52
hugh-avherald wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no longer considered a last-resort measure. Cirrus training now says to consider it as a first resort.

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 se…

> 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

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#110

Post by bombcar »

jandrese wrote: post #48
AYBABTME wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Not sure the mechanics of a microburst that would prohibit the plane getting through but not push the plane and parachute into the lake.
Post reply on HN