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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#121

Post by kurupt213 »

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.

The force of the chute opening is what kills the airframe

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#122

Post by kurupt213 »

bombcar wrote: post #105
wyager wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Both hobbies are equally unforgiving of mistakes

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#123

Post by cjbprime »

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)…

> Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to land itself.

This kind of feature exists, as Cirrus Safe Return Emergency Autoland:

https://cirrusaircraft.com/story/introducing-safe-return-eme...

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#124

Post by dweekly »

Animats wrote: post #92
_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…

Has Safe Return yet been used in an emergency? I've seen the demo videos, but haven't seen any news reports of it being used for real. It's not wasted hardware even if not used. The aircraft already has a flight control system capable of flying from waypoint to waypoint and landing. Safe Return adds a layer of software able to compute and enter a course, while squawking Mayday and playing canned emergency messages on…

Didn't this have to add a lot more automation that goes beyond what a typical Cirrus with Perspective/Perspective+ would offer? Not just the radar altimeter and automated gear extension but autothrottle, flaps, braking, an auto-flare, etc...

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#125

Post by dweekly »

rkagerer wrote: post #49
_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…

Are the radio calls one-way, or can it understand directions from the air traffic control tower (e.g. Don't use Runway 6, Runway 8 is clear)? How's that work, voice recognition or teletype or something?

Pretty sure the system doesn't parse ATC audio but as other posters have noted can use machine readable METARs and other data to get a sense for weather and available runways. (Note that the system does NOT parse NOTAMs yet per https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-autola...) Beyond that am guessing that it declares its intentions and hopes ATC can pave a clear path. They are generally exceptionally good at doing this for aircraft in distress; just squawk 7700, state your intentions on 121.5, they will make it happen - you're allowed to do literally anything and violate every rule in the book if it's required for safety of flight. You can land on an active military base or a major commercial airport runway if you need to. Mind you, there may be some paperwork to fill out on the ground after, but while you're in the pickle everyone is there to help.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#126

Post by nopzor »

atdrummond wrote: post #74
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.

Single engine is more likely what the poster meant than single pilot, no?

that’s what i meant.

what makes this plane unique is its single jet engine. this also makes running costs lower.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#127

Post by boarnoah »

ramesh31 wrote: post #67
imglorp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a glider pilot I find this mindset disappointing. Every aviator must have a constantly updating array of "what if" situations and planned responses: "Right now, where's my best landing spot and how would I get lined up for that?" etc. It leads to a chess-like thinking ahead mindset which brings all kinds of benefits. "Whelp I'll just pull the lever if something goes wrong" robs you of that. Automation and chutes a…

> Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder skills were contributory. The same reason modern high performance singles like the TBM are known as “dentist killers”. The profusion of technology that eliminated those stick and rudder skills has led to a lot of inexperienced pilots getting into situations they shouldn’t ever be in.

Interesting, never heard of that reputation being associated with more modern turboprops like TBMs.

Definitely have heard of it for older piston prop planes, especially from the early 2000s, which I always understood is partly a mix of factors re: the affordability of GA piston planes, how common it was to fly without IFR training etc...

I would imagine with turboprops like the TBMs, quite a few factors filter out their ownership by folks who aren't IFR trained, + the fact jets are as I understand generally inspected with much more rigor on more frequent basis?

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#128

Post by NonNefarious »

hackitup7 wrote: post #11
Gracana wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine failure, running out of fuel, stalls, spins, midair collisions, disorientation, etc. Cirrus has a history of CAPS deployments, linked in the article and copied here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

Very impressive to see how many people were able to walk away from these incidents, I wonder what the counts of injury or worse would look like without this system? Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?

Small planes are often flown under visual rules without a flight plan, meaning that pilots are free to basically dick around... with prohibitions against unauthorized entry into controlled airspace and flying too close to people and structures on the ground. And that's totally fine when done responsibly.

But the free-form nature of the vehicle operation provides more opportunity for screw-ups. Maybe someone was buzzing his house or not paying attention to flying while giving a sightseeing tour to his friends.

Compared to commercial flights, it's no wonder that GA has a far higher accident rate. Commercial flights fly extremely predictable and repetitive routes and procedures, which reduce the number of variables into the mission. I'd liken the comparison to that between personal cars and buses, except commercial air travel is even more regimented than bus travel.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#129

Post by busterarm »

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.

Teslas are in a very similar position and you can get insurance for those.

It's a total loss if you need any kind of body work (due to absurdly long wait times and Tesla considering damn near everything on the car structural) or anything related to the battery (due to replacement cost).

Post reply on HN