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

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#111

Post by kayodelycaon »

threatripper wrote: post #71
_s wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

It needs to be manually activated.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#112

Post by mannykannot »

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…

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!

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#113

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

HPsquared wrote: post #108
mlyle wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#114

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

atdrummond wrote: post #76
ehnto wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe 2000 feet unless Cirrus has changed their recommendations.

It’s 500ft in the flight manual

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#115

Post by kayodelycaon »

bombcar wrote: post #110
jandrese wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#116

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

cmurf wrote: post #79
kylecordes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#117

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #88
ehnto wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#118

Post by hef19898 »

captainoats wrote: post #101
throwaway894345 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ‘airworthine…

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#119

Post by CitizenKane »

JCM9 wrote: post #53
nopzor wrote: post #8

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…

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.

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#120

Post by kurupt213 »

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…

I thought the p-51 was the doctor killer
Post reply on HN