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 to a stop.
AVweb did an interesting video a couple of years ago, "Are Planes With Parachutes Really Safer?":
> The Cirrus line of aircraft have been flying for 20 years and although most people in aviation know they have full aircraft parachutes, it's fair to ask how effective these have been. With more than 90 uses of the so-called CAPS, has the system really saved lives? In this video, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli analyzes the record.
Concludes that parachutes a generally a good thing, and even though the Cirrus aircraft fleet has grown from 5000 to 7000 airplanes over the last ten years (12m30s), the anual fatality numbers have stay the same and so have overall annual accidents.
The first few years didn't see much improvement, probably because the training didn't emphasize it as much, but since ~2013 the advice is generally "if you're experiencing issues just pull the 'chute". There is a cost to fixing the aircraft afterwards, but it will be you paying it and not your widow or estate.
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.
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.
> ...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
The article is about the Cirrus Vision Jet, not the Cirrus SR22 propeller-driven aircraft.
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.
Insurance companies have a great deal of experience in the business of pricing risk. If they could model the risk of insuring Cirrus aircraft as if they did not have parachutes, then a first-cut model for them with parachutes seems well within reach - just assume all in-flight incidents causing damage will be total losses!
awesome to see the first real world example of a caps parachute deployment on the vision jet working out well.
the caps parachute results in “a good day for the passengers — walk away, bad day for the insurance company — plane will never fly again”
the vision jet also has a “safe return” feature that will 100% autonomously land at the nearest suitable airport.
both brs and safe return are designed to be initiated by a passenger, in the event of pilot incapacitation.
i’ve had the pleasure of flying on a vision jet before — it’s a really cool aircraft that flies almost as fast and high as much more expensive jets. and can be easily (realistically) flown by a single pilot.
> i’ve had the pleasure of flying on a vision jet before — it’s a really cool aircraft that flies almost as fast and high as much more expensive jets
It’s a really cool aircraft but It’s nowhere close to the speed or service ceiling of most private jets.
Here’s Citationmax departing LAX in a vision jet. It’s a beautiful video to watch but it seems like he is struggling to reach the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) altitudes for each waypoint, only able to do about 100 KIAS in the climb.
It’s a cool plane but very much does not “fly almost as fast” as traditional jets. It’s super slow and sluggish in that regard and causes headaches for ATC because it can’t fly as fast or climb as fast as other jets. Think everyone cruising down a highway with nice spacing doing 65 MPH and then one person is doing 45 MPH… that’s what ATC has to work around.
Agree it's awesome. Although the cruising speed is around 300 knots where a small bizjet would be over 400. That is more comparable to a fast propeller plane.
I am sure the plane can fly again on most cases, they just don't want the liability and they want to put "pressure" on the pilots to only deploy it when necessary.
A Cirrus pilot that loses an engine at a safe altitude will not think of deploying it because the plane will be gone.
I'll be really curious to see what the reason for the deployment was. If it was listed elsewhere, I have missed it.
Looking at the CAPS pulls on SR22## aircraft, the primary reasons are almost always either 1) pilot error or 2) engine issues.
Getting to the point of being insurable in a VisionJet is likely no small feat, though I admit I have no idea what the minimums and/or ratings required are to obtain an affordable policy. I am expecting that a low-time pilot is not going to be able to afford the insurance.
Turbine engines are notably reliable, so am curious if there was some other kind of issue.
In any case, glad they are OK and am interested to see the NTSB report someday in the future as to the cause.
While the official report on the reason will probably not come out for a while, there is some speculation that it was due to convective activity (thunderstorms) in the region. Someone on the Cirrus pilots forum looked up the weather at the time of the incident, and it looked like there was some decently heavy precipitation along the approach path.
Cirrus had a bad safety record when the aircraft first came out (this was the SR series). In essence it was a similar story to the “doctor killer” mantra that plagued Bonanzas early on… essentially pilots with more money that flying skill. The SR series are nice aircraft but also not “docile” relative to other single engine pistons. One can get into trouble real quick if flying outside the numbers and envelope.
Cirrus really revamped their training and that had a big impact. They also changed training to really emphasize chute pulls, which had probably led to some hair trigger pilot pulls but has also saved lives.
Will be interesting to see what happened here when all the details come out.
I used to do lead generation marketing for these folks and noted this was a neat feature at the time that was a big value prop we led with. Glad to see it works.
Looking at the photos, at least one of them crushed a pickup truck coming down in a parking lot. It'd certainly be a bad day for a bystander if they couldn't get out of the way. But, as you say, an uncontrolled landing is no better, and with probable higher impact speeds and greater risk of fire.
It amazes me the way the pilot doing the demonstration in the video (embedded in TFA) is so calm and matter-of-fact about the process. It's putting a remarkable degree of trust in an automated system, which, if there were some edge case failure, would be fatal.
[+] [-] crooked-v|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _s|3 years ago|reply
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 to a stop.
[+] [-] hugh-avherald|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p_l|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johntb86|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101c|3 years ago|reply
> The Cirrus line of aircraft have been flying for 20 years and although most people in aviation know they have full aircraft parachutes, it's fair to ask how effective these have been. With more than 90 uses of the so-called CAPS, has the system really saved lives? In this video, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli analyzes the record.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA
Concludes that parachutes a generally a good thing, and even though the Cirrus aircraft fleet has grown from 5000 to 7000 airplanes over the last ten years (12m30s), the anual fatality numbers have stay the same and so have overall annual accidents.
The first few years didn't see much improvement, probably because the training didn't emphasize it as much, but since ~2013 the advice is generally "if you're experiencing issues just pull the 'chute". There is a cost to fixing the aircraft afterwards, but it will be you paying it and not your widow or estate.
[+] [-] plantain|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhsysusbsjsi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FL410|3 years ago|reply
Insurance companies DO love it. Some even waive the deductible if you pull.
[+] [-] rlpb|3 years ago|reply
The article is about the Cirrus Vision Jet, not the Cirrus SR22 propeller-driven aircraft.
[+] [-] fibonacc|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bilsbie|3 years ago|reply
Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.
[+] [-] mannykannot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kurupt213|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nopzor|3 years ago|reply
the caps parachute results in “a good day for the passengers — walk away, bad day for the insurance company — plane will never fly again”
the vision jet also has a “safe return” feature that will 100% autonomously land at the nearest suitable airport.
both brs and safe return are designed to be initiated by a passenger, in the event of pilot incapacitation.
i’ve had the pleasure of flying on a vision jet before — it’s a really cool aircraft that flies almost as fast and high as much more expensive jets. and can be easily (realistically) flown by a single pilot.
[+] [-] kloch|3 years ago|reply
It’s a really cool aircraft but It’s nowhere close to the speed or service ceiling of most private jets.
Here’s Citationmax departing LAX in a vision jet. It’s a beautiful video to watch but it seems like he is struggling to reach the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) altitudes for each waypoint, only able to do about 100 KIAS in the climb.
https://youtu.be/DVXob_B3Cck
Contrast that to his later videos in the Citation CJ3 which looks like a SpaceX rocket in comparison.
Even Premier 1 Driver’s smallish jet drastically outperforms the SF50.
[+] [-] TylerE|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JCM9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 7952|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rafale|3 years ago|reply
A Cirrus pilot that loses an engine at a safe altitude will not think of deploying it because the plane will be gone.
[+] [-] heyflyguy|3 years ago|reply
Looking at the CAPS pulls on SR22## aircraft, the primary reasons are almost always either 1) pilot error or 2) engine issues.
Getting to the point of being insurable in a VisionJet is likely no small feat, though I admit I have no idea what the minimums and/or ratings required are to obtain an affordable policy. I am expecting that a low-time pilot is not going to be able to afford the insurance.
Turbine engines are notably reliable, so am curious if there was some other kind of issue.
In any case, glad they are OK and am interested to see the NTSB report someday in the future as to the cause.
[+] [-] LamboJ|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zymhan|3 years ago|reply
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
[+] [-] JCM9|3 years ago|reply
Cirrus really revamped their training and that had a big impact. They also changed training to really emphasize chute pulls, which had probably led to some hair trigger pilot pulls but has also saved lives.
Will be interesting to see what happened here when all the details come out.
[+] [-] pigtailgirl|3 years ago|reply
-- demo - cool --
[+] [-] ouid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BXLE_1-1-BitIs1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsonne|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkagerer|3 years ago|reply
(Not saying an uncontrolled landing couldn't do the same, just curious about the history)
[+] [-] pmyteh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bragr|3 years ago|reply
You are doing that every time you climb in an aircraft if it has a FADEC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
[+] [-] bambataa|3 years ago|reply