First parachute landing in Aus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

MTOW 1633kg. With four on board and part fuel (or no fuel?), say 1.5 tonnes.

While in these circumstances the parachute is obviously useful, with most fatal light aircraft accidents involving takeoffs, landings, or unskilled IFR flight, it is doubtful how useful it really is!

John

---

I have a friend who owns a Cirrus. The lower height limit for parachute deployment is 800 feet, though it has been deployed as low as 400 feet and was survived. There has never been a fatality when the shute has been deployed, and the system has saved 89 lives where the plane would have otherwise crashed.

I think the key would be to recognise early when deployment is required as it would be no use to think of it when you are already at treetop height.

Word has it that this crash was 100% caused by pilot error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

......

Word has it that this crash was 100% caused by pilot error.

---

Fuel exhaustion?

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Fuel exhaustion?

John

---

I don't know John. I couldn't say any more anyway on a public forum, the crash being subject to an ATSB investigation and all that stuff.

That said, those aircraft have that many alarms and warning systems on board, that the error must have been a monumental one!

There's bin at least one mebe two other Cirrus chute deployments in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FeatherWeightDriver

Neat link - thanks for sharing.

I wonder why the plane went in to a spin. Unless it was stalled and/or something else went wrong it should have kept flying, but finding a landing spot up there could have been "interesting". :eek:

The descent rate looked quite slow, I wonder how heavy the plane is and how big the parachute is.

PS: lol @ the bystander's comment about thinking the pilot was going to eject. Unless he had a slimpack on and was keen enough to open the door manually of course... ;)

---

Interesting, when I was training my instructor was a bit negative on the Cirrus as he was one of the apparent many who say they are hard to recover after a stall. I have seen them in a stall and they do tend to throw themselves into a flat spin very very quickly.

He was also dubious about the parachute saying how you are essentially forced to use it. Otherwise if you attempted a forced landing without power and stuffed it up resulting in injuries there would be pilot liability for not having used all available safety equipment. I also expect there are some who would be intent on doing a regular forced landing (assuming there was a suitable field) rather than blow a $20,000 piece of equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

Interesting, when I was training my instructor was a bit negative on the Cirrus as he was one of the apparent many who say they are hard to recover after a stall. I have seen them in a stall and they do tend to throw themselves into a flat spin very very quickly.

......

---

I wonder if that is why they decided to fit the parachute?

John

The Cirrus actually has a split leading edge on the which gives the wing two differing angles of incidence. The inside portion stalls before the outside portion with the aim being that you get a partial wing stall and still maintain control with the outer portion. Nice in theory, but if you proceed to a full wing stall you're ****ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

He was also dubious about the parachute saying how you are essentially forced to use it. Otherwise if you attempted a forced landing without power and stuffed it up resulting in injuries there would be pilot liability for not having used all available safety equipment. I also expect there are some who would be intent on doing a regular forced landing (assuming there was a suitable field) rather than blow a $20,000 piece of equipment.

---

The aircraft would have been insured. The insurer would rather pay out on a chute and some airframe damage than multiple fatalities.

That aircraft will fly again. It only suffered structural damage to the tail section.

Sent from my HTC One XL using AULRO mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

I don't know John. I couldn't say any more anyway on a public forum, the crash being subject to an ATSB investigation and all that stuff.

That said, those aircraft have that many alarms and warning systems on board, that the error must have been a monumental one!

---

We will read about it eventually in the report I assume.

No matter what the cause, at least it didn't end in fatalities.