Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida
flyingmag.com
flyingmag.com
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.
Mayday call is used on life threatening situations.
I'm not familiar with the system's details, but I would assume that it would pick the nearest towered airport with emergency services that met the requirements of the landing performance. Landing autonomously on a strip in the middle of nowhere, with nobody around, isn't likely to be particularly useful in an emergency unless the aircraft is no longer airworthy - and even then, if you can keep it in the air, going somewhere big with emergency services is a better idea.
A towered airport will have air traffic control (not all small strips do), and if the jet sets the transponder code to indicate an emergency, and is making blind radio calls about intent as to what runway it's going to land on, ATC will then clear the airport for the incoming emergency, and keep everyone else out of the way - and roll the trucks to meet it once it stops. I doubt it will bother getting off the runway autonomously - just come to a safe stop, shut down, and then it's someone else's problem to taxi it off.
Aviation is somewhat nice in that way. Emergency traffic has priority. If I were to be flying a Cessna 152 along Lake Michigan and had an emergency with O'Hare being the nearest airport, I've got priority, and the oceanic heavies will get out of the way until it's resolved. Now, you may have some serious questions about what the problem was, but this is the sort of stuff resolved after the fact, on the ground.
There will be questions, but there is a very strong doctrine of "A pilot in an emergency can do whatever the fuck they think is best", to the point where they are explicitly trained to ignore ATC orders in an emergency, if they don't agree.
A pilot would have to do something extremely malicious before the FAA would even start to question the choice of emergency landing airport. They don't want pilots second guessing their decisions out of fair of reprisals.
The fact that airplanes that are low on fuel have absolute emergency priority has occasionally resulted in, uh, incidents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3RUWvRRGLQ
But does it run Doom?
And while there are countless single engine jet planes and many small business jets without lavatory, there indeed aren’t many (“jet” engine && single engine && business jet) designs, let alone civilian type certified models.
Usually when someone says a plane has received its certification they mean it’s ‘airworthiness certification’, so the final approval by the FAA.
Usually, EASA and FAA cross certify, making it easier to get one if you have the other already. Fascinating stuff, aerospace certification.
what makes this plane unique is its single jet engine. this also makes running costs lower.
OEFGR could have used that. Their autopilot just continued to fly straight until they ran out of fuel and spiraled down into the sea.
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.
Cirrus’s transition training emphasises pulling the chute - the seats and airframe are designed to absorb the vertical impact and protect the people on board. Most other aircraft you learn to pick a field to glide into, or do spin / unusual attitude training to recover from them. The chute is essentially a get out of jail free card for when you don’t have the options for any of those things.
Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?
A microburst could easily take out a full-sized airline at low altitude. That’s why airports and planes have equipment to detect air shear so they don’t fly into it. Small planes are far more affected by weather and don’t typical have radar or safety systems like flight envelope protection.
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.
But the free-form nature of the vehicle operation provides more opportunity for screw-ups. Maybe someone was buzzing his house or not paying attention to flying while giving a sightseeing tour to his friends.
Compared to commercial flights, it's no wonder that GA has a far higher accident rate. Commercial flights fly extremely predictable and repetitive routes and procedures, which reduce the number of variables into the mission. I'd liken the comparison to that between personal cars and buses, except commercial air travel is even more regimented than bus travel.
But I was under the impression that pilot training has a lot of attention on recovery from a stall or spin, and unless at low altitude, those are generally recoverable (in a small aircraft). Would love for someone with actual knowledge to weigh in, thanks!
https://flyasg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CAPS_Guide.p...
Stall spin training is only required for flight instructor certification. While anyone can do this training, FARs require both instructor and student are wearing a parachute, unless it's for CFI training.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/tra...
Spin recovery different issue.
Part of the Part 23 (certified aircraft rules) process is demonstrating spin recovery. The Lancair is experimental so it's not Part 23. Cirrus said, "We put in a parachute instead of demonstrating spin recovery." To which the FAA said, "OK, that works for us."
Since the Cirrus prohibits spins (most certified aircraft do) and Cirrus never demonstrated it officially, I only have the word of random comments on the internet to go with. The assumed state is, "The SR22 has poor recovery characteristics from spins and the manufacturer states in the POH that CAPS is the only recovery method." Maybe it's not all that bad, but at pattern altitude (this has sadly been demonstrated) I'm sure it's fatal.
> The Cirrus test pilot performing the spin program noted that while all spins entered were recoverable, they required a method of spin recovery that, while not unique in light general aviation airplanes, is different from that of a light trainer airplane in which a pilot is likely to receive spin training. Significant variability in spin recovery training techniques also exists – ranging from merely releasing the elevator control in some light trainers, to movement of the control to neutral, to brisk forward movement to neutral, to brisk foreward movement past neutral, etc.. In the case of the SR20, the proper spin recovery procedure is to briskly move the elevator control to the full down position. This is an unnatural control movement, when the nose of the aircraft may already appear to the pilot to be pointing down sharply. This is also a movement not typically advocated by spin training instructors due to associated discomfort.
https://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrussta...
A photo from the prop version, post deployment. You can see how the straps are embedded in. Neat system.
Not any more, but Cirrus introduced this technology to general aviation.
Unlike the rocket ejector seat in a fighter jet, CAPS cannot save you very close to the ground. The ejector seat in a modern fighter is rated for zero/zero ie you could pull the handle from a plane that's just sat on the ground motionless, it would still eject you upward and you'd probably survive. CAPS is intended to be used at two thousand feet AGL (ie above the ground)
As another person commented[1], they claim it to work as low as 400ft (straight and level flight, 920ft during a spin). Much higher than a combat jet, but not too bad either.
Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder skills were contributory.
The same reason modern high performance singles like the TBM are known as “dentist killers”. The profusion of technology that eliminated those stick and rudder skills has led to a lot of inexperienced pilots getting into situations they shouldn’t ever be in.
Definitely have heard of it for older piston prop planes, especially from the early 2000s, which I always understood is partly a mix of factors re: the affordability of GA piston planes, how common it was to fly without IFR training etc...
I would imagine with turboprops like the TBMs, quite a few factors filter out their ownership by folks who aren't IFR trained, + the fact jets are as I understand generally inspected with much more rigor on more frequent basis?
Never dentists though, but maybe that was just my flying club’s biases.
Vision Jet is a great airplane with a sound design. But they are akin to the general aviation equivalent of a Ferrari or Lamborghini. Lots of fun and perfectly safe if you know what you’re doing. Disastrous if not.
It really just comes down to training. An aircraft with this level of performance would have only been flown by someone with an ATP certificate 20 years ago. Now anyone with money and a PPL + type rating can get into situations they have no ability to correct.
Obviously it is not true that people use it as a first resort. Landing with wheels on the runway is the first resort. As supported by the fact that vastly more cirruses land that way.
Initially they trained it as a last resort. Something you only do when you get mated in that chess game you mention. What they found is that pilots were reluctant to pull the lever. They know it totals the aircraft and it is hard to see the point where all is lost with 100% certainty. Pilots crashed planes where the chute could have saved them.
So they changed the emphasis. They now tell the pilots in their training that if they are ever in any doubt they should pull the lever. The people on board will walk away and the plane is the problem of the insurer. After this change in the training they have seen that pilots were pulling a lever a lot more and a lot more lives were saved.
> Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder skills were contributory.
Absolutely. There are a some general aviation pilots who perhaps should not be flying. I don’t know how the people organising the parachute training at Cirrus could help with that though.
A typical glider might touch down at 40mph, a Cirrus SR22 at 70mph. The glider might weigh 800lbs and the Cirrus 3600lbs. The energy at touchdown (remember velocity is squared!) is radically different. Also keep in mind that the wheels are only about 15" in diameter. 70mph in a typical farm field on 15" wheels is not going end well unless the field is perfectly smooth and firm. Not to mention the challenges of not hitting power lines, fences and cows while going significantly faster on approach (final speed is more like 100mph).
The parachute is there to take a situation where survival is a real gamble and turn it into a situation where survival is probable (almost 100% so far).
> 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.
The Cirrus SF50, which was the subject of this story, is the top selling light jet by a large margin too for many of the same reasons. It provides the best safety features, technology, comfort and price - though admittedly it does sacrifice performance to achieve the other attributes. This is aviation and everything is a collection finely balanced trade-offs.
[1] https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2021ShipmentReport-02-2...
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.
Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large military planes.
Altitude is your friend.
I looked into the stats before I started flying and iirc this is not the case for private aircraft on a per-hour basis. In fact, private aircraft may have been riskier than motorcycle.
60% of motorcyclists becoming organ donors are not the motorcyclists fault.
~~However, something like 35% of the accidents are running out of fuel, and of the remaining accidents, 35% of those were in poor weather.~~
So if it is a clear day and you remember to put fuel in the airplane it gets you ahead of a motorcycle and not as safe as a car.
It really depends on if you look at just fatal accidents or all accidents.
Edit:
Looking at 2019 it appears 38 of 109 fatal accidents were weather and fuel related.
So if you fill up with gas and fly on a nice day you are definitely still worse than a car and maybe twice as safe as a motorcycle? (statistically speaking of course)
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institut...
The comments so far seem to presume the parachute is the only thing required to keep you safe. Statistically there’s two engine failures every 100,000 hours in single engine pistons. That’s incredibly low. Most pilots are lucky to make 1000 hours in a lifetime.
The thing that is actually going to kill most people is flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the side of a hill in bad weather, hitting wires, or mishandling on base turn and stalling.
The previous comments about the parachute being ineffective for takeoff and landing are partially correct. The minimum altitude for successful CAPS (parachute) deployment is 500ft AGL, but it has been used much lower successfully (sorry don’t have the figures but I think 200-300ft).
They market the CAPS like it’s the only thing required to make flying safe but in reality you are more likely to kill yourself than the airplane killing you; and a parachute won’t stop that.
This kind of feature exists, as Cirrus Safe Return Emergency Autoland:
https://cirrusaircraft.com/story/introducing-safe-return-eme...
Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.
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.
It's a total loss if you need any kind of body work (due to absurdly long wait times and Tesla considering damn near everything on the car structural) or anything related to the battery (due to replacement cost).
Insurance companies DO love it. Some even waive the deductible if you pull.
The article is about the Cirrus Vision Jet, not the Cirrus SR22 propeller-driven aircraft.
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.
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.
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.
there's a recent story of a vision jet pilot who's been putting "treat me like a turboprop, I don't mind" in the comments of flight plans to let controllers know what they can expect performance wise from him (and to make them laugh).
A Cirrus pilot that loses an engine at a safe altitude will not think of deploying it because the plane will be gone.
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.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
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.
-- demo - cool --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU
But obviously 10x better than the alternative.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
Not really the parachutes fault...
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.
Further, commercial passenger aircraft are already very safe due to system redundancy not practical on smaller aircraft. Would a ballistic parachute system help with many accidents in this category? I would be willing to bet not. Ballistic parachute systems are not a magic bullet - they require substantial altitude/time to deploy (as much as 900 feet in a spin, for example). Many substantial aviation accidents happen during takeoff and landing below or near these altitudes.
Would you pay a multiple of your current airfare for an extremely small (practical) reduction in travel risk?
Furthermore, most commercial aviation disasters occur at low altitude and the ones that happen at high altitude tend to be too catastrophic for chutes to be of value. (If something bad happens at high altitude that doesn't destroy the plane it tends to make it back.) Off the top of my head I can only think of three crashes where they could have used chutes--two where the hydraulics were damaged by high energy events (and would the chutes have worked properly??) and one fuel failure due to hijacking.
(Not saying an uncontrolled landing couldn't do the same, just curious about the history)
Edit: ah I see, the video footage. I was unable to watch due to mobile. My apologies!
You are doing that every time you climb in an aircraft if it has a FADEC.