It is not light on the controls. The yoke is spring loaded. Makes it VERY stable to hand fly. Just keep it trimmed. Which is exceedingly easy with the hat switch.

The bad part of that is you lose some "feel". But hand flying in IMC is much easier than in the Bonanza 35, which IS light on the controls. But which also gives you that AWESOME "feel."

What about the earlier models? He was flying them I guess 10 years ago.

I'm not honestly sure, David. I *thought* it was always that way. The main change in flight controls was (I believe in the G2 to G3 model) the disconnect of the bungee between aileron and rudder.

But I'm not 100% sure.

Bungee deletion started with G3 along with a new wing with more dihedral.

Cirrus trim is very fast so it is much harder to trim perfectly. I often wish for a Cessna style trim wheel. The fact that the plane is quick in pitch exacerbates the issue. I found the Columbia easier to trim for hand flying in IFR. That said, you can certainly hand fly the plane just fine. I suggest anyone curious just go take a demo flight.

Me too. But I wouldn't trade the hat switch for it. I'd like both.

And I like the Cessna style for lack of dependency on the electrical system.

Me too. But I wouldn't trade the hat switch for it. I'd like both.

And I like the Cessna style for lack of dependency on the electrical system.

It is interesting that much of the conversation about the chute is narrowed down to pilot incapacitation. And from some comments on proper training, it would follow that their should never be an accident; well unfortunately that is not the case. The bottom line is that the chute does provide a benefit in many different accident causal factors.... mechanical failure, loss of control in IMC, pilot error of one type or another. Well you can argue that with training it "should" never happen, but the accident reports show a different story. The chute is not simply about pilot incapacitation.

And with just 20 hours under my belt in the SR22-TN I have to say it is an incredible airplane. Easy to fly, very capable airplane.

I agree, Joe. One of the strategies of the critics is to narrow the conversation to a single area. I am now trying not to argue with the unswayable, or those with an agenda, unless I think the audience is buying it.

Since there have been several dozen threads with the same people saying the same thing, I didn't think it was worth arguing for pages again.

With that said, the tone continues to change with the success. Heck, I was a detractor 5 years ago. But now there are 4 years of incredible statistics. It now has to be considered more than a blip.

And even that, they will attribute to only improved piloting skills. And yes, that played a part, but the chute, and the increased confidence and willingness to use it when needed (a big part of the new training, as you know), is the main reason for the change, IMO.

Hand in had - training and more pulls that continue to protect - has proven an incredibly affective combination.

2011 was a bad year, which stimulated an effort to reeducate Cirrus pilots.

Over the next 3 full years we have data for, 2012-2014, things got better every year.

It is definitely not a blip. The change is VERY solid statistically and it continues into 2015 very strongly.


The evidence is solidly against you on this one.

If what you said is true, basically that the situations requiring use of chute still occur at the same frequency, then we should see an increase in chute events and a decrease in fatal accidents. One could reasonably expect more gratuitous chute pulls, too, cases where the chute was used but wasn't actually necessary. This wold be a reasonable expectation for a "pull early" message.

So the expected outcome of encouraging more chute pulls is to have a pretty significant uptick in chute pulls. Obvious, right?

What we are actually seeing is a decrease in BOTH fatal accidents AND chute pulls. See the green line here:

This is normalized to fleet size/hours as best I can do.

(See this thread for more details: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=101849)

The green line is fatal accidents plus chute pulls, what you might call "fatal situations". Cirrus pilots in 2014 are finding themselves in about 35% LESS fatal situations than in 2011, and a higher percentage of them end up up under chute instead of dead.

2015 is looking even more dramatic, only 4 chute pulls in 7.5 months. That's a pace for ~6 for all 2015. By comparison, 2014 had 12 chute events, and the fleet size is LARGER now, too.

So 2015 is shaping up to be HALF the chute pulls of 2014. WOW! There must be a lot more dead Cirrus pilots from this apparent reluctance to use the chute!

Nope.

What there is are a lot less dead Cirrus pilots and a lot less broken airplanes, too. There are only 2 fatal accidents in 2015 so far (one of which was a chute pull, so only 5 fatal situations). This is less than half of 2014. That's major improvement.

The change in the Cirrus safety story is fundamentally a change in the Cirrus pilot's assessment of risk and doing something PRIOR to needing the chute to eliminate that risk. This can be a no go decision, a turn around, just better airmanship, whatever.

I believe the fundamental change here is that teaching pilots about chute pulls teaches them about how pilots GOT INTO THOSE SITUATIONS in the first place. The pilots then apply that knowledge, perhaps even subconsciously, to preventing accidents, rather than escaping from them.

The Cirrus faithful may go on believing in the religion of the chute and how it has brought them to the promised land of safety. In reality, it was changing the mindset of the pilots that has made the difference. Indeed, I'd say discussing how past Cirrus pilots died when they had a chute challenges the chute faithful to reevaluate what it means to have one, and that thought perhaps saves them from needing it in the future.

If we did a similar training program for Bonanza pilots, I predict we'd cut the fatal accident rate in half or better. The MU2 SFAR program caused a 90% reduction in fatal accidents, so I have seen this effect before. How many times do we need to prove that training is the number one safety tactic? No piece of equipment is remotely as effective.

Mike C.

The pulls have not come down much, even looking at your graph. And, yes, situations have diminished. Training is helping, as is, likely, time in type.

But pilots are being taught in training to consider CAPS a lot more often. And there are less dead pilots because they are using it when they need to. Not always - there was another recent example of a fatal that shouldn't have been. And they were close enough to an airport that if the speed was managed correctly, they could have made it. That's why many flying an SR will pull rather than try the rarely practiced power off landing. Rare though it is, I'm good with that.

The dramatic lines of the Corvalis - your favorite comparison and the only one close - shows the sample size is too small.

The trend of the pulls will be interesting. Is has trended down a bit, but the three years prior were unusually high - the same three years in which the rate dropped below 1 in 100k hours. As you are fond of saying, seven months is too short a time to consider a trend.

I wish there was at least one more pull this year. There would be one less dead. Actually, it's being considered a pull for now. It was certainly below 1k', and low enough that some though it was post impact, but I believe one eye witness said it deployed before impact. More data on altitude will come out after analysis.

I, and others, are also impacted by how many of the very unusual number of Bo accidents this year could have been likely saved under chute. My friend, Steve Fehr, for one. He had talked with me about moving to the Cirrus 18 months earlier.

Time will tell. One thing we both agree on is it is better to have the option.

BTW, Steve went to BPPP - the safety program the CPPP was patterned after - less than a year earlier, and he went to them often. I'm not discounting training. Far from it. I just want more options.

You and I argue this often enough. I'll try to get back to not arguing with the unswayable.

I'm confused. What's the fatal chute pull that occurred in 2015 ? What do you mean by "fatal situations" and how do you come up with the number 5 ?

As an MU-2 pilot I fully understand the safety benefits of SFAR 108 training. As an SR22 pilot I greatly appreciate the piece of mind the chute brings, much like TCAS and TAWS do.

-Pascal

Lake Wells, FL, late July.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/regio ... crash-dies


4 chute pulls, 2 fatals, 1 event is both, total of 5 situations which either ended up fatal, or the chute was given credit for "saving" someone.


Peace of mind could lead to risk of body. Don't take too much risk credit from the chute.

Mike C.

Yes, they have.

Message: "pull early!"

Result: less pulls.

Meaning: pilots avoid situations that need a chute.


Exactly. Contemplating the need for the chute causes better judgment to NOT get to that point in the first place.


There are a lot less dead pilots because they don't NEED it in the first place due to better exercise of judgment.


That's BS. The fleet size is significant enough to draw meaningful conclusions. The 3 year rolling average shows this easily which is why I provided that graph.


You have to account for the increase in fleet size (or the lesser fleet size earlier). My charts do that.


Someone who ignores data is the unswayable one.

Chutes are not saving Cirrus pilots, Cirrus pilots are saving themselves by avoiding situations requiring their use.

Mike C.

There is no use arguing with you. You accept your opinions as fact and everyone else as the unenlightened.

Many have said the Corvalis numbers are too small. Convonce yourself what you may, it doesn't make it right.

And to make a blanket statement that chutes are not saving pilots is just ignorance. But I know you are not ignorant, so it's just blindness brought on by agendavitus.

53 chute saves (I'm not counting last month's even though COPA is for now, because I believe it will have been too low to matter) and never a fatality when pulled over 1k' and below 200KIAS goes against chutes are not saving pilots. A LOT of those were not chute-emboldened pilots. Some were.

I have once again confronted the one man who can't pass up an opportunity to bash Cirrus. And never stops. Every time I take you off my foe list because of some of your great posts, you end up back on.