8 ms·

Just in case anyone (like me) is thinking - wait did that aeroplane have a parachute? From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System h

by nickcw 5y ago

Just in case anyone (like me) is thinking - wait did that aeroplane have a parachute? From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Sy... The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is a whole-plane ballistic parachute recovery system designed specifically for Cirrus Aircraft's line of general aviation light aircraft including the SR20, SR22 and SF50. The design became the first of its kind to become certified with the FAA, achieving certification in October 1998, and as of 2014 was the only aircraft ballistic parachute used as standard equipment by an aviation company.

maweki 5y ago
I was wondering whether there was a mix-up in the crew count, as one pilot with a parachute saves two people and a one-person crew lands the plane. This mostly clears it up.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  My less charitable reading was that the pilot abandoned the Cirrus on a parachute, but then it seemed like the plane landed…
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Pilots of planes with CAPS are (now) taught to pull the chute if anything goes wrong inside the profile (low enough speed, far enough above ground) where the chute is designed to work. The aeroplane is insured, you can buy a new one. Even if the pilot and all passengers are insured you can't buy new ones. They changed this because it turns out that the same phenomenon that leads to private pilots taking undue risks in the rest of flight ("Get-there-itis") also makes them reluctant to pull the chute even when it's clearly their best option. Pilots who clearly couldn't reach a safe landing spot, yet had working CAPS would dig themselves (and their passengers) a grave rather than just pull the handle. So teaching them to start by assuming they'll pull the chute and only then considering whether there are other options reduces the fatality rate.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      I’m not really sure how to ask what I want to ask, so apologies if this doesn’t make sense: Does the parachute only work if the plane is in a free fall? If the plane is gliding along and suddenly the engine goes out, for example, would pulling the chute work?
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        There is a maximum speed that the system can handle: > Four CAPS deployments occurred successfully at higher speeds, 168, 171, 187 and 190 knots indicated airspeed, and one deployment failed at an airspeed estimated at over 300 knots airspeed. * https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/What-Is-CAPS https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/What-Is-CAPS Anything lower than that will forward-motion stop the aircraft. AFAICT, there is a need for 2000' (650m) of altitude above the ground for the system to deploy in time to be useful (slow descent).
        captainredbeard 5y ago
        Even then, they recommend pulling the chute anyway because it can reduce velocity if it’s still above nominal “touchdown” speed
        DarmokJalad1701 5y ago
        > AFAICT, there is a need for 2000' (650m) of altitude above the ground for the system to deploy in time to be useful Official Cirrus guidelines include verbalizing "CAPS is available" when crossing 600ft AGL during climb-out. Source: I fly an SR22.
      - captainredbeard 5y ago
        Well you wouldn’t pull the chute. The plane has lift when it has forward motion at a non stalling angle of attack. It would become a glider until reaching stall speed
        tialaramex 5y ago
  - maweki 5y ago
    That's exactly what I wondered about. How one parachute and two crew can lead everybody uninjured.
t0mas88 5y ago
The more generic system is called BRS, Ballistic Recovery Systems. They deliver this as an option for many small aircraft and it's popular for experimental / home built aircraft. One downside of the systems is that they typically have a maximum lifespan of 10 years while airframes last 50+ years. So every 10 years there is a large maintenance cost to replace/renew the parachute system. Much less an issue for a $ 800k Cirrus SR22 (like the one in this incident) than for a $ 30k old Cessna.
- cookguyruffles 5y ago
  Am I correct in saying after one usage, the parachute system generally needs replaced? I think I read this about Cirrus planes anyway
  - bbojan 5y ago
    I believe the whole airplane needs to be replaced after BRS use.
    - ahartmetz 5y ago
      It may sound pointless unless you consider that the pilot will not need to be replaced.
      - Leherenn 5y ago
        There's the issue that in many cases people tried to save the airframe rather than activate the parachute, knowing the aircraft was likely to be written off, and died doing so. It the same when the pilot is equipped with a parachute.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        This is indeed the early experience with BRS, which has been substantially addressed via training which started with some complex scenario-based messaging and later evolved to a more simplified “pull early, pull often” which has resulted in a bias in a better direction for human safety.
dmix 5y ago
> The device is attributed with saving over 200 lives to date. https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That particular phrasing and calculation, suggesting that every chute deployment without fatalities represents that number of people “saved” is quite controversial and IMO not supported by an analysis of the data. I think it’s great that the system exists, it has undoubtedly saved lives, but unless Cirrus crashes are overwhelmingly fatal compared to other airplanes, it’s overstating “fatal accidents turned into non-fatal accidents” by likely a factor of ~3 and number of fatalities avoided by ~4. This type of mishap is probably the best scenario for a chute, though. I have no illusions that following a mid-air that I am still a strong favorite to bring my non-chute airplane to earth without fatalities. (The stats say I’m about a 60:40 favorite to do so.) CAPS saves lives. CAPS has not saved the lives of every person who survived a CAPS deployment, because most of those would have survived anyway. In most off-airport arrival scenarios, I’d be wishing to have a chute. * - One of my instructors was in command for CAPS Event #46
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I completely agree, but for a more complete analysis, we would have to consider the fatality rate for the sort of crashes in which CAPS is employed. IIRC, Cirrus is now encouraging pilots to use CAPS in any engine failure with sufficient altitude for it to work, on account of the number of such accidents, in CAPS-equipped aircraft, where the pilot chose not to use it, and someone aboard was killed or seriously injured. This will presumably further muddy the used/saved ratio, while probably increasing the total number of saved. In a collision situation, at least one as violent as this one, you can't be sure whether some vital control or structure has been damaged to the point where it is about to fail, so using a parachute of any sort, where feasible, seems to be the rational choice. Quite by accident, I came across this pucker-inducing article a couple of days ago, where thre's little doubt that bailing out, if it were an option, would have been the right thing to do, even though this flight ended safely in this case. https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/student-flight-control-jam/ https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/student-flight-control-j... (On second thoughts, if the pilot had a parachute, he could have attempted to free up the controls without making his situation any worse.)
jonplackett 5y ago
I don't know why this blew my mind so much, but it did.
alister 5y ago
What are the problems with making such a system for large passenger aircraft (perhaps with multiple parachutes)?
- gecko 5y ago
  The drastically higher speeds involved (250-300 knots airspeed, as opposed to more like 50-90 knots for GA aircraft), combined with drastically higher weights (think about the chutes needed for something like Apollo, which is nowhere near the size of a large passenger aircraft, and realize you need way more) would both be major issues. There’s also the simple fact that larger passenger aircraft tend not to fail this way, making it less likely such a system would help even if it existed.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  I would expect the problem to be "mass goes up with size cubed, while parachute drag only goes up with size squared". I.e. you need a disproportionately larger chute (or more of them) for large aircraft. Those are dead weight in normal operation, which really hurts the economics.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  The sibling comments make some of the same arguments, but here’s an article which also addresses it: "An aircraft is most vulnerable during take-off and landing because it is closer to the ground (its biggest obstacle), and is travelling at low speeds and therefore is harder to manoeuvre. According to statistics from Boeing, almost three-quarters of deaths from plane crashes between 2005 and 2014 occurred during these phases of flight. But this is the time when a detachable cabin would least likely be successful at saving lives. Being closer to the ground would give the pilot much less opportunity to jettison the cabin following an incident and if it were detached it could well land in a built-up area." https://theconversation.com/why-a-detachable-cabin-probably-wont-save-your-life-in-a-plane-crash-53532 https://theconversation.com/why-a-detachable-cabin-probably-...
- marcinzm 5y ago
  To add to another comment larger planes have much better redundancy (multiple engines, multiple control lines, multiple pilots, etc.) so the situations where a parachute would help are much much fewer. So weight is probably better spent on making the redundant systems even more redundant than anything else.
Aeolun 5y ago
Ah, that’s why I only read about one parachute for two passengers :D
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Thank you, I was so confused. I was thinking the pilot a genius for bringing and activating a parachute. Now I see it was just great design. > As of 1 May 2021, CAPS had been activated 122 times, 101 of which saw successful parachute deployment. In those successful deployments, there were 207 survivors and 1 fatality. No fatalities had occurred when the parachute was deployed within the certified speed and altitude parameters
- londons_explore 5y ago
  They are some impressive numbers, but to really compare you need an expert looking at each situation and estimating the likely outcome had the CAPS system not been installed.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    Most GA pilots are awful so it's a pretty safe bet that CAPS saved lives.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  It’s a “marquee feature” of buying a Cirrus, he didn’t just wake up and pack a chute
- jmpman 5y ago
  21 of 122 failed? That’s a concerning statistic. I’d expect closer to 99% success, not 82%. How many fatalities when the parachute failed to deploy? 100%? If so, then you have almost a 1/5 chance of dying when you engage the parachute?
  - sio8ohPi 5y ago
    Cirrus has a list of deployment events on their site. The failures mostly appear to be cases where the parachute was deployed too low. https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History?id=3 https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History?id=3
  - 5y ago
shadowgovt 5y ago
I remember when these were being tested. Some of the testing was done at the NASA Langley center, which still today specializes in airframes in addition to space... They have a whole-airframe catapult and drop system. These parachutes have been an absolute game-changer for small aircraft pilot survival. It's unlikely this kind of collision would have been survivable for the small-plane pilot 25 years ago.

by nickcw 5y ago

maweki 5y ago

I was wondering whether there was a mix-up in the crew count, as one pilot with a parachute saves two people and a one-person crew lands the plane. This mostly clears it up.

Grustaf 5y ago
My less charitable reading was that the pilot abandoned the Cirrus on a parachute, but then it seemed like the plane landed…
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Pilots of planes with CAPS are (now) taught to pull the chute if anything goes wrong inside the profile (low enough speed, far enough above ground) where the chute is designed to work. The aeroplane is insured, you can buy a new one. Even if the pilot and all passengers are insured you can't buy new ones. They changed this because it turns out that the same phenomenon that leads to private pilots taking undue risks in the rest of flight ("Get-there-itis") also makes them reluctant to pull the chute even when it's clearly their best option. Pilots who clearly couldn't reach a safe landing spot, yet had working CAPS would dig themselves (and their passengers) a grave rather than just pull the handle. So teaching them to start by assuming they'll pull the chute and only then considering whether there are other options reduces the fatality rate.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    I’m not really sure how to ask what I want to ask, so apologies if this doesn’t make sense: Does the parachute only work if the plane is in a free fall? If the plane is gliding along and suddenly the engine goes out, for example, would pulling the chute work?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      There is a maximum speed that the system can handle: > Four CAPS deployments occurred successfully at higher speeds, 168, 171, 187 and 190 knots indicated airspeed, and one deployment failed at an airspeed estimated at over 300 knots airspeed. * https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/What-Is-CAPS https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/What-Is-CAPS Anything lower than that will forward-motion stop the aircraft. AFAICT, there is a need for 2000' (650m) of altitude above the ground for the system to deploy in time to be useful (slow descent).
      - captainredbeard 5y ago
        Even then, they recommend pulling the chute anyway because it can reduce velocity if it’s still above nominal “touchdown” speed
      - DarmokJalad1701 5y ago
        > AFAICT, there is a need for 2000' (650m) of altitude above the ground for the system to deploy in time to be useful Official Cirrus guidelines include verbalizing "CAPS is available" when crossing 600ft AGL during climb-out. Source: I fly an SR22.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      Well you wouldn’t pull the chute. The plane has lift when it has forward motion at a non stalling angle of attack. It would become a glider until reaching stall speed
      - tialaramex 5y ago
- maweki 5y ago
  That's exactly what I wondered about. How one parachute and two crew can lead everybody uninjured.

t0mas88 5y ago

The more generic system is called BRS, Ballistic Recovery Systems. They deliver this as an option for many small aircraft and it's popular for experimental / home built aircraft. One downside of the systems is that they typically have a maximum lifespan of 10 years while airframes last 50+ years. So every 10 years there is a large maintenance cost to replace/renew the parachute system. Much less an issue for a $ 800k Cirrus SR22 (like the one in this incident) than for a $ 30k old Cessna.

cookguyruffles 5y ago
Am I correct in saying after one usage, the parachute system generally needs replaced? I think I read this about Cirrus planes anyway
- bbojan 5y ago
  I believe the whole airplane needs to be replaced after BRS use.
  - ahartmetz 5y ago
    It may sound pointless unless you consider that the pilot will not need to be replaced.
    - Leherenn 5y ago
      There's the issue that in many cases people tried to save the airframe rather than activate the parachute, knowing the aircraft was likely to be written off, and died doing so. It the same when the pilot is equipped with a parachute.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        This is indeed the early experience with BRS, which has been substantially addressed via training which started with some complex scenario-based messaging and later evolved to a more simplified “pull early, pull often” which has resulted in a bias in a better direction for human safety.

dmix 5y ago

> The device is attributed with saving over 200 lives to date. https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

sokoloff 5y ago
That particular phrasing and calculation, suggesting that every chute deployment without fatalities represents that number of people “saved” is quite controversial and IMO not supported by an analysis of the data. I think it’s great that the system exists, it has undoubtedly saved lives, but unless Cirrus crashes are overwhelmingly fatal compared to other airplanes, it’s overstating “fatal accidents turned into non-fatal accidents” by likely a factor of ~3 and number of fatalities avoided by ~4. This type of mishap is probably the best scenario for a chute, though. I have no illusions that following a mid-air that I am still a strong favorite to bring my non-chute airplane to earth without fatalities. (The stats say I’m about a 60:40 favorite to do so.) CAPS saves lives. CAPS has not saved the lives of every person who survived a CAPS deployment, because most of those would have survived anyway. In most off-airport arrival scenarios, I’d be wishing to have a chute. * - One of my instructors was in command for CAPS Event #46
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I completely agree, but for a more complete analysis, we would have to consider the fatality rate for the sort of crashes in which CAPS is employed. IIRC, Cirrus is now encouraging pilots to use CAPS in any engine failure with sufficient altitude for it to work, on account of the number of such accidents, in CAPS-equipped aircraft, where the pilot chose not to use it, and someone aboard was killed or seriously injured. This will presumably further muddy the used/saved ratio, while probably increasing the total number of saved. In a collision situation, at least one as violent as this one, you can't be sure whether some vital control or structure has been damaged to the point where it is about to fail, so using a parachute of any sort, where feasible, seems to be the rational choice. Quite by accident, I came across this pucker-inducing article a couple of days ago, where thre's little doubt that bailing out, if it were an option, would have been the right thing to do, even though this flight ended safely in this case. https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/student-flight-control-jam/ https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/student-flight-control-j... (On second thoughts, if the pilot had a parachute, he could have attempted to free up the controls without making his situation any worse.)

jonplackett 5y ago

I don't know why this blew my mind so much, but it did.

alister 5y ago

What are the problems with making such a system for large passenger aircraft (perhaps with multiple parachutes)?

gecko 5y ago
The drastically higher speeds involved (250-300 knots airspeed, as opposed to more like 50-90 knots for GA aircraft), combined with drastically higher weights (think about the chutes needed for something like Apollo, which is nowhere near the size of a large passenger aircraft, and realize you need way more) would both be major issues. There’s also the simple fact that larger passenger aircraft tend not to fail this way, making it less likely such a system would help even if it existed.
MauranKilom 5y ago
I would expect the problem to be "mass goes up with size cubed, while parachute drag only goes up with size squared". I.e. you need a disproportionately larger chute (or more of them) for large aircraft. Those are dead weight in normal operation, which really hurts the economics.
mikepurvis 5y ago
The sibling comments make some of the same arguments, but here’s an article which also addresses it: "An aircraft is most vulnerable during take-off and landing because it is closer to the ground (its biggest obstacle), and is travelling at low speeds and therefore is harder to manoeuvre. According to statistics from Boeing, almost three-quarters of deaths from plane crashes between 2005 and 2014 occurred during these phases of flight. But this is the time when a detachable cabin would least likely be successful at saving lives. Being closer to the ground would give the pilot much less opportunity to jettison the cabin following an incident and if it were detached it could well land in a built-up area." https://theconversation.com/why-a-detachable-cabin-probably-wont-save-your-life-in-a-plane-crash-53532 https://theconversation.com/why-a-detachable-cabin-probably-...
marcinzm 5y ago
To add to another comment larger planes have much better redundancy (multiple engines, multiple control lines, multiple pilots, etc.) so the situations where a parachute would help are much much fewer. So weight is probably better spent on making the redundant systems even more redundant than anything else.

Aeolun 5y ago

Ah, that’s why I only read about one parachute for two passengers :D

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Thank you, I was so confused. I was thinking the pilot a genius for bringing and activating a parachute. Now I see it was just great design. > As of 1 May 2021, CAPS had been activated 122 times, 101 of which saw successful parachute deployment. In those successful deployments, there were 207 survivors and 1 fatality. No fatalities had occurred when the parachute was deployed within the certified speed and altitude parameters

londons_explore 5y ago
They are some impressive numbers, but to really compare you need an expert looking at each situation and estimating the likely outcome had the CAPS system not been installed.
- selectodude 5y ago
  Most GA pilots are awful so it's a pretty safe bet that CAPS saved lives.
captainredbeard 5y ago
It’s a “marquee feature” of buying a Cirrus, he didn’t just wake up and pack a chute
jmpman 5y ago
21 of 122 failed? That’s a concerning statistic. I’d expect closer to 99% success, not 82%. How many fatalities when the parachute failed to deploy? 100%? If so, then you have almost a 1/5 chance of dying when you engage the parachute?
- sio8ohPi 5y ago
  Cirrus has a list of deployment events on their site. The failures mostly appear to be cases where the parachute was deployed too low. https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History?id=3 https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History?id=3
- 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

I remember when these were being tested. Some of the testing was done at the NASA Langley center, which still today specializes in airframes in addition to space... They have a whole-airframe catapult and drop system. These parachutes have been an absolute game-changer for small aircraft pilot survival. It's unlikely this kind of collision would have been survivable for the small-plane pilot 25 years ago.