Cirrus SR20 Accident Orcutt CA May 20, 2020

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
Damn, I got about 100 hours in that tail number. Did a bunch of checkouts when it was at another school, a bunch of first flights, and even took multiple crews from European airlines on layovers for a 100 dollar Catalina burger run. What a terrible way to go.
 

bLizZuE

Working the high speed buffet to happy hour.
I think when I was a CFI in Florida there was a low altitude CAPS (?) deployment and they didn’t make it and I just remember feeling terrified for them pulling the chute believing it would save them and it didn’t.

This video is way more terrifying.
 

melax

Well-Known Member
Did the chute got separated from the craft ? Above max speed deployment ?
(too low, too late .. ?)
 

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
I'd have to imagine at that attitude, the chute wouldn't have mattered. Wonder if this is another slow speed pattern crash.
Flight aware shows it on the base to final turn...no one could get the chute out that low in a spin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt this will be the last of this type of deal.

IMO, Cirrus really needs to revamp its training... especially for pilots learning to fly in a Cirrus aircraft.

I had to bite my tongue to the point of bleeding while sitting through Cirrus instructor training. They emphasize the use of the chute to the point that some pilots' instinctive reflex for any discombobulation, disorientation, or actual emergency is simply "pull the chute."

They asked me, "You lose an engine after take off at 500AGL... What do you do?" The answer they are looking for is "pull the chute," which is the answer they are looking for in all kinds of flyable situations.
 

CaptainYoda

Well-Known Member
With any fancy gear, it allows the opportunity for complacency.

I don't need to practice, I have a parachute!

I don't need to practice, I have "Highway in the Sky"
 

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
With any fancy gear, it allows the opportunity for complacency.

I don't need to practice, I have a parachute!

I don't need to practice, I have "Highway in the Sky"
This plane is 15 years old and is all steam gauges with a G430. I’d hardly call it fancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
After initial training, I feel like you either have an internal sense for your attitude, or you don't. Many of you know this, but years ago a friend in our 172 club took our plane for a swim in Tampa Bay, killing himself and his parents in the process. Investigation discovered that, after being told by ATC that he was lined up for 27 instead of 22, he nearly completed an S turn, while on final, at what was estimated at almost 90-degrees of bank, trying to right it (made the first turn, bought the farm on the second).

We had carried out a safety meeting a month before that, which he attended, with arrival stall/spin/die as one of the subjects. Still, I don't know if you can teach someone with hundreds of hours to realize that zero lift component, in the pattern, at 200' is a bad place to put yourself.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt this will be the last of this type of deal.

IMO, Cirrus really needs to revamp its training... especially for pilots learning to fly in a Cirrus aircraft.

I had to bite my tongue to the point of bleeding while sitting through Cirrus instructor training. They emphasize the use of the chute to the point that some pilots' instinctive reflex for any discombobulation, disorientation, or actual emergency is simply "pull the chute."

They asked me, "You lose an engine after take off at 500AGL... What do you do?" The answer they are looking for is "pull the chute," which is the answer they are looking for in all kinds of flyable situations.
I used to be a CSIP and still actively train pilots at my operation for our Cirrus. What type of scenario did you consider flyable in which they were teaching to deploy the parachute? Is there a better way to handle engine failures on takeoff?

Their early training philosophy from the first few years as a company left a lot to be desired, but I think their training for the past 6-8 years has been excellent. There's really nothing I disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PGT
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
I used to be a CSIP and still actively train pilots at my operation for our Cirrus. What type of scenario did you consider flyable in which they were teaching to deploy the parachute? Is there a better way to handle engine failures on takeoff?

Their early training philosophy from the first few years as a company left a lot to be desired, but I think their training for the past 6-8 years has been excellent. There's really nothing I disagree with.
My basic disconnect with the Cirrus training regards emphasizing "fly the plane" vs. "rely on the gadget."

The engine-loss-after-takeoff scenario was probably the most glaring to me, but there are many others where the P-instinct is hazardous.

Pretty much since the beginning of aviation, pilots have been taught to maintain situational awareness, and to fly the plane based on that awareness. Part of maintaining situational awareness is recognizing and anticipating the need to do so. The Cirrus training (philosophy?) weakens pilots' situational awareness for an number of reasons, not the least of which is it does not emphasize the need to have situational awareness in the first place. Pilots have been taught to survey the area around an airport for potential landing areas in the event of an engine loss. Is the area high density? Is the area infested with hazards? Etc. The Cirrus training completely ignored that. "Just pull the chute." And, maybe one is always going to have an airplane with an airframe parachute, I suppose that might be a seemingly plausible technique.

Me, I'm always going to teach "know the territory," "have an out," "have a plan B, and perhaps most important, "Fly the airplane." I'm going to teach that early and often. Why? Principle of Primacy. First in, Last out. What you learn first, you learn best.

Pilots are not always going to be flying planes with parachutes. Very rarely, in fact. If pilots learn in a Cirrus, they are unlikely to develop default gut instinct to wind their watch, determine the issue, and keep flying the plane.

If you are going to crash, always fly the airplane into the crash. Never drop it into the crash... except if you're flying a Cirrus in which case that is reversed.

I'm not bashing the entire idea of the parachute. But let's teach proper aviation techniques and instincts first. Then, later, we can add the gadgets.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
I'm not bashing the entire idea of the parachute. But let's teach proper aviation techniques and instincts first. Then, later, we can add the gadgets.
What you're saying is valid, but I disagree.

The parachute isn't simply a gadget, it's an integral piece of equipment. No different from an FMS, second engine, autopilot, ejection seat, etc. I don't think it would be a good idea to ignore those components when training any more than ignoring a parachute.

A person always needs to fly the plane they're flying, not the plane they might fly or want to fly in the future. It's the same reason the things pilots do in a 172 don't necessarily apply to a 737 or F-16 or Bonanza or whatever, and vice versa.

The same law of primacy you mentioned for picking unplanned landing sites works against someone needing the parachute. They hesitate to pull it even when they need it.

I always emphasized to people that the Cirrus is simply a different aircraft from most others. It takes time and training to transition into it properly, and if you've only ever flown a Cirrus since Day 1, it takes time and training to transition out of it properly.

For a pilot buying a plane for personal use, they might fly that plane exclusively for years. I don't think it makes them any more or less of a pilot to tailor their training to operate their specific aircraft in the safest way possible.
 
Top