Cirrus SR20 Accident Orcutt CA May 20, 2020

WacoFan

Bigly
I'm working on tailwheel if you have a good suggestion. They don't need a parachute, all their problems occur on the ground...
I'm most likely the least qualified to give advice on the topic of flying on this site. I will say this - there are some airplanes that people malign - Luscombes, Swifts, Pitts, etc. None of those are probably relevant for you as I doubt you're getting your TW endorsement in a Swift or a Pitts. A Luscombe is relevant though. Anyway - Curtiss Pitts said "there are no squirrely airplanes, only squirrely pilots". Don't buy into hype about any of them - some are more direct/quicker to respond than others, and some have odd quirks like most any airplane. But do whatever you can to perpetuate the rumors because it holds resale down and allows for cheaper purchase of cooler airplanes.
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I'm most likely the least qualified to give advice on the topic of flying on this site. I will say this - there are some airplanes that people malign - Luscombes, Swifts, Pitts, etc. None of those are probably relevant for you as I doubt you're getting your TW endorsement in a Swift or a Pitts. A Luscombe is relevant though. Anyway - Curtiss Pitts said "there are no squirrely airplanes, only squirrely pilots". Don't buy into hype about any of them - some are more direct/quicker to respond than others, and some have odd quirks like most any airplane. But do whatever you can to perpetuate the rumors because it holds resale down and allows for cheaper purchase of cooler airplanes.
Was just reading today about the reported tendencies of Stinson 108s to weathervane because of the huge tail.

Have you seen the WagAbond? Experimental clone of a Vagabond/Pacer from Wag Aero? That thing is super cool.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Can you STC to get it removed?

The chute is not installed because Cirrus cares so much about you as a pilot. It's not even there because Cirrus wants your wife to think it's safe for you to fly.

The chute is there because without the chute, the Cirrus in unairworthy and not certifiable as an aircraft.

@StuffMarketingHides
@BugNotFeature
@BugMarketedAsFeature
 

Beefy McGee

Well-Known Member
Now don't get me wrong, cirrus pilots think they are 737 pilots and use up all available runway when landing, and takeoff is little better, but @SlumTodd_Millionaire I have to call you out by saying that most airports have suitable landing area's.
My home airport:
View attachment 53566
San Diego's Montgomery and Gillespie fields, I got my first 1000 hours or so:
View attachment 53568View attachment 53567

There are airports in the middle of nowhere, that have great options; but in my experience there are roughy 0 airports in the world I've been to where I would rather chance my superior airmanship, rather than pull the chute, (if I was ever a wussy Cirrus pilot), should I find myself in that situation.

I used to desire to save the plane, but I really don't care If I write it off, as long as I, and my passengers survive.


And of course:
Unless you are in a fast jet or twin turboprop, all those roads look pretty good to me for just about any single engine prop plane I can think of. I'd probably take a chance plopping in between traffic at 50-60 knots.
 
Last edited:

Beefy McGee

Well-Known Member
Was just reading today about the reported tendencies of Stinson 108s to weathervane because of the huge tail.

Have you seen the WagAbond? Experimental clone of a Vagabond/Pacer from Wag Aero? That thing is super cool.
I googled both of those. Pretty cool.

I also found out about the Bearhawk line of planes from a suggested link from that. 2 place, 4 place, and LSA.

 

bucksmith

Did you lock the doors?
Was just reading today about the reported tendencies of Stinson 108s to weathervane because of the huge tail.

Have you seen the WagAbond? Experimental clone of a Vagabond/Pacer from Wag Aero? That thing is super cool.
That’s interesting, Stinson 108 used to be on my short list until I kept making babies. Now it’s a Cherokee six or the power ball.
 

SteveC

Really?
Staff member
Unless you are in a fast jet or twin turboprop, all those roads look pretty good to me for just about any single engine prop plane I can think of. I'd probably take a chance plopping in between traffic at 50-60 knots.
Eh, I curtailed my preference for roads substantially when I started really paying attention to how many wires there are crossing every few hundred yards (interstates and highways not as much but still, it only takes one).
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
The chute is not installed because Cirrus cares so much about you as a pilot. It's not even there because Cirrus wants your wife to think it's safe for you to fly.

The chute is there because without the chute, the Cirrus in unairworthy and not certifiable as an aircraft.

@StuffMarketingHides
@BugNotFeature
@BugMarketedAsFeature
Care to cite your sources?

This source contradicts what you're saying:

 

Nark

Macho Superpilot
Was just reading today about the reported tendencies of Stinson 108s to weathervane because of the huge tail.

Have you seen the WagAbond? Experimental clone of a Vagabond/Pacer from Wag Aero? That thing is super cool.
As a former Stinson 108 owner, I have to say that’s a load of horse poop.
Funny story: the spring in my (180)tail wheel that keeps it (the wheel) straight, snapped (ie broke internally). So for a while I only had a castoring tailwheel, which made it a pain in the wind, but even with that it only weathervaned once, because the wind was 17g31 90* from my taxi.

The only time wind has been a concern is flying on ski’s. Without brakes, there is no differential braking. Best you can do is keep prop wash over the rudder, and a rope tied to the tail.
 

CaptainYoda

Well-Known Member
The chute is not installed because Cirrus cares so much about you as a pilot. It's not even there because Cirrus wants your wife to think it's safe for you to fly.

The chute is there because without the chute, the Cirrus in unairworthy and not certifiable as an aircraft.

@StuffMarketingHides
@BugNotFeature
@BugMarketedAsFeature
Wait wait wait....
So, are you saying that Cirrus said:
"Crap! This plane is UN-CERTIFIABLE!! We're RUINED!!!"
Engineer: "I know, let's add a parachute... to the WHOLE AIRPLANE!!!"

FAA:

 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
As a former Stinson 108 owner, I have to say that’s a load of horse poop.
Funny story: the spring in my (180)tail wheel that keeps it (the wheel) straight, snapped (ie broke internally). So for a while I only had a castoring tailwheel, which made it a pain in the wind, but even with that it only weathervaned once, because the wind was 17g31 90* from my taxi.

The only time wind has been a concern is flying on ski’s. Without brakes, there is no differential braking. Best you can do is keep prop wash over the rudder, and a rope tied to the tail.
Hey, I was only passing along what I read in an article - I’m glad real world experience says otherwise because I really like 108s and they seem like a hell of a lot of bang for the buck.

I’m adding bits of tailwheel time to my logbook whilst carefully whittling down the list of airplanes I’m interested in owning while getting closer to target budget. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Some valid points in this thread. I’m not an expert but a CFI with time in various SR22s.

I want to make two points that people outside of the Cirrus community aren’t familiar with:
  1. The training is, hands down, the best in the GA environment. Cirrus pays for a 3-day transition with Cirrus certified instructor whether you buy new or used - phenomenal really. Let’s see other manufacturers do that. It’s extremely standardized, taking many items from the 121 environment.
  2. The parachute has saved many lives (roughly 200 pulls off the top of my head). Flying a piston single is much safer with it. There is no downside to having one except cost but if you’re flying a Cirrus you can afford a repack every 10 years. Yes I’d rather pull the chute at 500’ AGL with an engine out then try to find a landing, it’s much safer.
People who • on the parachute are idiots. You can fly an IFR approach with an NBD but why wouldn’t you take a G1000? It’s just safer. Same with a piston single without a parachute compared to a Cirrus.
I've never understood that statement, "hands down," as a statement implying veracity. With one's hands down on the table or down at one's sides, one can conceal much. I prefer "hands up" to demonstrate truth and lack of threat to person, property, or pocketbook.

1. Cirrus is not, like Eleazar Wheelock, doing this "Out of the goodness of the Cirrus soul." They are doing this because their lawyers and consultants advised them it would reduce liability, and thereto associated expenses. (As an aside... Really? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?)

2. Flying a single piston is definitively NOT safer with CAPS. That said... "Flying" a single piston as an overly-resourced, overly-indulged, overly-self-absorbed, distracted, incompetent, and uninformed pilot sitting at the controls of a single piston is probably much safer.

2.1 The owner-operator jet and TP markets wish they had a CAP system so they could get all the guys rich enough to buy jet - but not rich enough to self-insure a jet - to buy their jets.

3. NO, flying a GPS is NOT safer than flying an NDB if you don't know how to fly either of them properly. But, hey... Jerry does a good job, so who am I to mock? Also, did you know there are still dudes who can do math MUCH faster on a slide rule than on an electronic calculator?? Likely shocking- to millennials - but true. (Without snark, my biggest problem with Garmin stuff is that Garmin (and others) tends to do stuff simply because they can - regardless of any real added value, and often to the detriment of expert domain practitioners [non-pilot code kiddies write the code - pilots fly the airplanes and have to dig through the nested menus.])

Overall, you are making the assumption that someone who makes it through required training is educated, informed and competent. That is a patently FALSE (and, dare I say it? Stupid!) assumption in regards to any education in any endeavor. (But do go talk to Betty de Voss, she'll probably invest in your scheme.) Generally speaking, education is only worth a damn if the student seeks it out with an intent to actually better himself by doing the real hard work (not hoop jumping) of actually learning something and retaining something that is actually useful at or above the application level. (This is not the same thing as getting an education so you can display a piece of paper to someone in order to get paid a few bucks more than the guy not holding the piece of paper.)

"Buying" training is much like "buying" an airplane. Neither should assume any amount of inherent or acquired competence in the buyer, before or after the transaction is closed.

Competence, and knowledge, and wisdom are earned, not purchased.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Now don't get me wrong, cirrus pilots think they are 737 pilots and use up all available runway when landing, and takeoff is little better, but @SlumTodd_Millionaire I have to call you out by saying that most airports have suitable landing area's.
My home airport:
View attachment 53566
San Diego's Montgomery and Gillespie fields, I got my first 1000 hours or so:
View attachment 53568View attachment 53567

There are airports in the middle of nowhere, that have great options; but in my experience there are roughy 0 airports in the world I've been to where I would rather chance my superior airmanship, rather than pull the chute, (if I was ever a wussy Cirrus pilot), should I find myself in that situation.

I used to desire to save the plane, but I really don't care If I write it off, as long as I, and my passengers survive.


And of course:
You're at Timmy??
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Same reason, for decades, we‘ve told people “hit the deer and drive straight forward.” So many STILL choose the immovable tree or rock ledge. You’ll almost certainly survive the deer; the big tree or rock ledge is a LOT more “iffy.”

Choose the most safe option when you can.
Clearly, that is NOT what the guy who just augered the Cirrus did.

The problem (as a generalization which is not worth a damn). Forget flying right. Cirrus pilots aren't even competent enough to pull the chute right.
 
Top