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

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#91

Post by Syonyk »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #87
kube-system wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chutes take some period of time before they begin slowing the aircraft. If distance to impact is less than the distance to deploy the chute, the chute does not help.

Not true, I think. Even a partial deployment will help provide drag and reduce aircraft velocity

But they also come at the expense of control. Once you pop the chute, you're a passenger, you no longer have the ability to control or point the airplane in any preferred direction.

If you've lost that ability already, the chute is fine, but if you still have the ability to influence your path, being able to pick what you hit and how fast you hit it can be worth a lot.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#92

Post by Animats »

_s wrote: post #3
crooked-v wrote: post #2

For those wondering at the context, this is a company that builds well-liked small aircraft with the unique feature of having a last-resort emergency parachute for the entire plane built into the fuselage.

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 the guard frequency. New hardware is just a radio altimeter for use in landing, and the ability to lower the landing gear under computer control.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#93

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

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 doctor killer, minus the killing). You have been warned: there are better aircraft out there imho. And I haven’t even started on the flight controls (spring feedback is terrible), unstable yaw stability without yaw dampener (pax vomit profusely), and single power lever which decreases rpm with power resulting in an aircraft unable to (easily) slow down (without idle) which is normally done with prop braking. This results in energy problems similar to airlines where rookie pilots who cannot think ahead end up with too much energy. Also these modern long thin glider wing designs trying to get +5kts more can go to hell - they are getting so large it makes ground handling difficult; often longer than the airborne saving. If you want to get there faster, you save time on the ground. A decked out RV-10 is a good alternative.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#94

Post by fibonacc »

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) and place itself in a holding pattern. Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to land itself.

The last two layers are really nice to haves, its already incredible to have chutes readily available in private jets. Now its tough to argue that flying is inherently dangerous with these extra layers of last resort measures.

Having said that I do think cheaper alternatives to this Cirrus jet already exists, nothing wrong with propeller planes either. My goal would be to be able to do bush flying, landing on top of mountain fields, camping for a while and then flying back home.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#95

Post by dehrmann »

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)…

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#96

Post by bilsbie »

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…

Which plane of this class do you think is safest today?

Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#97

Post by mlyle »

bilsbie wrote: post #96
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…

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.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#98

Post by bilsbie »

marcinzm wrote: post #21
hackitup7 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots? There's also less redundancy in the plane overall so if something goes wrong it's more likely to lead to serious issues. A large commercial plane has multiple pilots, engines, power sources, control surface systems, computers, sensors, etc.

Also they fly above the weather and have more instruments.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#99

Post by kgilpin »

k1w1 wrote: post #83
plantain wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The often not considered factory is the type of pilots that are attracted to (or advertised at) Cirrus's are generally considered to be high risk / low hours / non-current, so the accident stats are even more remarkable.

This is an often repeated, but completely false observation. The reality is that Cirrus and Diamond dominate the market for new piston singles [1]. If you want to buy a piston aircraft with the latest safety features, performance, comfort and training, then Cirrus is the number one choice. Cirrus has the number 1, 3 & 6 top selling aircraft (all have the same airframe and avionics with different engines) and thus dom…

It may or may not be false but I don’t see the relevance of citing stats about the purchase of brand new airplanes. As I’m sure you know, most airplanes sold are used, because most people can’t afford a brand new 4 place certificated airplane.

Re: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

#100

Post by fibonacc »

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.

I wonder for those situations where you experience catastrophic failures at low altitude situations where you can't deploy the chutes, whether some type of short burst rockets situated around the plane could activate to "cushion" the plane and orientate it to safety.

Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large military planes.

Post reply on HN