14 ms·

Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

166 points by MDWolinski 4y ago

crooked-v 4y ago
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.
- _s 4y ago
  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.
  - rkagerer 4y ago
    Are the radio calls one-way, or can it understand directions from the air traffic control tower (e.g. Don't use Runway 6, Runway 8 is clear)? How's that work, voice recognition or teletype or something?
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      One way. The purpose is so that other pilots are aware that there's a problem. In a lot of US airspace there is no air traffic control, and most strips do not have anything resembling a control tower.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      If a pilot were to call mayday and say they're landing on runway 6 everyone would be trying to ensure runway 6 was clear. The only way 6 would be blocked is if there was something already on it that couldn't be moved in time. Think of a mayday call as the lights and sirens of the sky.
      - mumumu 4y ago
        I think this apply to any kind of emergency. Planes can squawk a codes to signal emergency w/o rádio and get the controller attention. Mayday call is used on life threatening situations.
        LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Yeah--the point is that a plane under robot control like that is going to be calling mayday and everyone on the frequency is going to make way for it if possible. You make way for a plane calling mayday like you make way for any vehicle running lights and sirens--but in the sky there's a lot more ability to make room and a lot more enforcement against anyone who doesn't obey.
    - Syonyk 4y ago
      Any reasonably sophisticated jet (of which this is clearly one) will have access to more or less realtime weather data, as well as NOTAMs (notices to airmen) regarding closed runways and such. 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.
      - phire 4y ago
        > 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.
    - dweekly 4y ago
      Pretty sure the system doesn't parse ATC audio but as other posters have noted can use machine readable METARs and other data to get a sense for weather and available runways. (Note that the system does NOT parse NOTAMs yet per https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-autoland/ https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-autola...) Beyond that am guessing that it declares its intentions and hopes ATC can pave a clear path. They are generally exceptionally good at doing this for aircraft in distress; just squawk 7700, state your intentions on 121.5, they will make it happen - you're allowed to do literally anything and violate every rule in the book if it's required for safety of flight. You can land on an active military base or a major commercial airport runway if you need to. Mind you, there may be some paperwork to fill out on the ground after, but while you're in the pickle everyone is there to help.
      - sbierwagen 4y ago
        Additional context: there have been major airliner crashes resulting in hundreds of deaths as a result of planes put in holding patterns by ATC that ran out of fuel while waiting to land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3RUWvRRGLQ
  - ManuelKiessling 4y ago
    > 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. But does it run Doom?
  - nopzor 4y ago
    also worth mentioning - the vision jet is afaik the only single jet passenger jet that is fully certified.
    - stevehawk 4y ago
      I think you meant to say "single pilot passenger jet" that is fully certified, and if so, that statement is not correct. The Phenom, Citation, and several others are.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        For a layman, what does certification mean? Certified for what?
        numpad0 4y ago
        I suppose GP meant to say “single engine non-turboprop turbofan/turbojet private jet that are FAA certified to operate in the US with appropriate civilian licenses”. 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.
        captainoats 4y ago
        Certification is the process of getting an aircraft design/model approved by the FAA for sale/use. There are 3 phases for GA commercially available aircraft, type certification (design approved), production certification (manufacturing approved), and airworthiness certification (plane tested, and ready for sale to the public) Usually when someone says a plane has received its certification they mean it’s ‘airworthiness certification’, so the final approval by the FAA.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Each commercially ised or sold aircraft has to come from a certified Desogn Organisation, has to be built by a certified Production Organisation (in most cases the same company, aerospace legallish Airbus and Boeing have a DO and a PO which arw separate entities as far as authorities are converned), needs an Type Certificate (achieved after successful flight testing and to be redone if there are configuration and design changes) and has to be maintained by a certified maintenance organisation and operated by a certified operator (continued airworthymess is a operator thing, just don't ask me any details on that, I work on the PO and touched some maintenance stuff in my life so far). Usually, EASA and FAA cross certify, making it easier to get one if you have the other already. Fascinating stuff, aerospace certification.
  - threatripper 4y ago
    > where the autopilot lands the aircraft in case of Pilot incapacitation OEFGR could have used that. Their autopilot just continued to fly straight until they ran out of fuel and spiraled down into the sea.
    - kayodelycaon 4y ago
      It needs to be manually activated.
      - pholbrook 4y ago
        "The G3000 also monitors pilot activity/inactivity and cabin pressure and can automatically engage Autoland or Emergency Descent Mode if no activity is detected." - Arstechnica article. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/this-system-from-garmin-can-land-a-private-plane-when-your-pilot-cant/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/this-system-from-garmin...
  - Animats 4y ago
    Has Safe Return yet been used in an emergency? I've seen the demo videos, but haven't seen any news reports of it being used for real. 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.
    - dweekly 4y ago
      Didn't this have to add a lot more automation that goes beyond what a typical Cirrus with Perspective/Perspective+ would offer? Not just the radar altimeter and automated gear extension but autothrottle, flaps, braking, an auto-flare, etc...
- johntb86 4y ago
  What sort of circumstances would they use this parachute? Engine failure? In a spin?
  - _s 4y ago
    Nearly always in the event of an engine failure or an unrecoverable attitude; which may be a spin. 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.
  - Gracana 4y ago
    Engine failure, running out of fuel, stalls, spins, midair collisions, disorientation, etc. Cirrus has a history of CAPS deployments, linked in the article and copied here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History
    - hackitup7 4y ago
      Very impressive to see how many people were able to walk away from these incidents, I wonder what the counts of injury or worse would look like without this system? Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Small plane pilots are generally “not as experienced as they could be” and so Cirrus pilots are trained “when in doubt pop it out” as you might be able to successfully crash land or make it to a landing field, but the chute doesn’t work below a certain altitude.
        AYBABTME 4y ago
- p_l 4y ago
  It's not unique to Cirrus, but Cirrus is probably most well known for having made bigger and heavier planes with BRS
  - lisper 4y ago
    > It's not unique to Cirrus Not any more, but Cirrus introduced this technology to general aviation.
    - tristanb 4y ago
      The BRS was produced and patented by another company, then purchased by Cirrus who were the first to include it as standard equipment. But not the first in aviation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
    - p_l 4y ago
      Cirrus only made the first in terms of standard type certified aircraft in USA, BRS in ultralight and experimental class were common by then.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    What is BRS?
    - krisoft 4y ago
      Ballistic Recovery System. It is a parachute afixed to the airframe which can be deployed by the pilot. It is named that because the parachute is pulled out of its housing by a small solid-fueled rocket. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
    - chinathrow 4y ago
      The manufacturer of those rescue systems. https://brsaerospace.com/ https://brsaerospace.com/
- hugh-avherald 4y ago
  It's no longer considered a last-resort measure. Cirrus training now says to consider it as a first resort.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Indeed, you need to consider CAPS early because it requires altitude, in a plane with a problem you are presumably losing altitude, maybe rapidly, so it won't be long before you can't use CAPS. By then you need to have either decided to use it, or picked some other course of action so that you don't need it. 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)
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      > 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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32802182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32802182
    - nradov 4y ago
      Even zero/zero ejection seats can be outside the safe envelope if the aircraft is at low altitude, and is either inverted or has a negative sink rate.
  - imglorp 4y ago
    As a glider pilot I find this mindset disappointing. Every aviator must have a constantly updating array of "what if" situations and planned responses: "Right now, where's my best landing spot and how would I get lined up for that?" etc. It leads to a chess-like thinking ahead mindset which brings all kinds of benefits. "Whelp I'll just pull the lever if something goes wrong" robs you of that. Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder skills were contributory.
nopzor 4y ago
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.
- 7952 4y ago
  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.
- kloch 4y ago
  > 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. https://youtu.be/DVXob_B3Cck 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.
  - V-eHGsd_ 4y ago
    > It’s a really cool aircraft but It’s nowhere close to the speed or service ceiling of most private jets. 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).
- 4y ago
api 4y ago
Is scaling such a thing to a passenger aircraft feasible?
- hef19898 4y ago
  Short answer, no. Mostly due to weight, speed, flight altitudes and different certification criteria.
- teruakohatu 4y ago
  I don't see why not but passenger aircraft are incredibly safe and the pilots are usually very experienced with at least in co-pilot. Even more so if you exclude war and runway related accidents which wouldn't be helped by a parachute.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    A parachute in the right place could help some of those landing/runway incidents too. But hard to imagine many pilots deploying the chute on a landing they thought they were good for.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Chutes take some period of time before they begin slowing the aircraft. If distance to impact is less than the distance to deploy the chute, the chute does not help.
      - CryptoBanker 4y ago
        Not true, I think. Even a partial deployment will help provide drag and reduce aircraft velocity
        Syonyk 4y ago
        But they also come at the expense of control. Once you pop the chute, you're a passenger, you no longer have the ability to control or point the airplane in any preferred direction. 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.
ouid 4y ago
"no life threatening injuries", but notably did not walk away from the crash. There's a lot in between those two.
- dmix 4y ago
  I you watch the video of a previous CAPS landing over water, the landings can still be a bit rough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU But obviously 10x better than the alternative.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  Two out of three people walked away.
- zymhan 4y ago
  > One occupant was seriously injured, and two of the three occupants received minor injuries. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Looking at those photos, it seems likely the injury was probably because a tree branch probably smashed through the cabin. Not really the parachutes fault...
  - dmix 4y ago
    That’s a cool website, summary, sources, and accessible data…
- dylan604 4y ago
  so, not a good landing if the definition of a good landing is any landing you can walk away from
ilamont 4y ago
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.
- bambataa 4y ago
  They’re in a simulator, aren’t they?
  - drakythe 4y ago
    You mean they trained for this in a simulator? Probably yes. Was this incident in a simulator? Nope. This was a live pull in a real world scenario. Edit: ah I see, the video footage. I was unable to watch due to mobile. My apologies!
    - yathern 4y ago
      They're saying that the attached video in the article is from a simulator training. The video is not of the real life usage that just occurred.
    - rossdavidh 4y ago
      Demonstration in embedded video is a simulator, though.
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      The embedded video is in a simulator. The article contains no pictures or video related to a real world deployment.
- bragr 4y ago
  >It's putting a remarkable degree of trust in an automated system, which, if there were some edge case failure, would be fatal. You are doing that every time you climb in an aircraft if it has a FADEC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
heyflyguy 4y ago
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.
- zymhan 4y ago
  Based on the preliminary report, it seems like bad weather? https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
- LamboJ 4y ago
  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.
  - darknavi 4y ago
    Using any parachute in stormy/rainy conditions sounds terrifying.
throw0101c 4y ago
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. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA 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 4y ago
  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.
  - k1w1 4y ago
    This is an often repeated, but completely false observation. The reality is that Cirrus and Diamond dominate the market for new piston singles [1]. If you want to buy a piston aircraft with the latest safety features, performance, comfort and training, then Cirrus is the number one choice. Cirrus has the number 1, 3 & 6 top selling aircraft (all have the same airframe and avionics with different engines) and thus dominates new sales. 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-02-23-2022-0730.pdf https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2021ShipmentReport-02-2...
JCM9 4y ago
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.
rkagerer 4y ago
Has a CAPS save ever injured a bystander or destroyed expensive property like a house? (Not saying an uncontrolled landing couldn't do the same, just curious about the history)
- pmyteh 4y ago
  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.
pigtailgirl 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8 -- demo - cool --
dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
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.
- fibonacc 4y ago
  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.
  - dehrmann 4y ago
jsonne 4y ago
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.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
Yes, a hull write-off is expensive, but passenger injuries and/or fatalities are even more expensive.

166 points by MDWolinski 4y ago

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.

_s 4y ago
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.
- rkagerer 4y ago
  Are the radio calls one-way, or can it understand directions from the air traffic control tower (e.g. Don't use Runway 6, Runway 8 is clear)? How's that work, voice recognition or teletype or something?
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    One way. The purpose is so that other pilots are aware that there's a problem. In a lot of US airspace there is no air traffic control, and most strips do not have anything resembling a control tower.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    If a pilot were to call mayday and say they're landing on runway 6 everyone would be trying to ensure runway 6 was clear. The only way 6 would be blocked is if there was something already on it that couldn't be moved in time. Think of a mayday call as the lights and sirens of the sky.
    - mumumu 4y ago
      I think this apply to any kind of emergency. Planes can squawk a codes to signal emergency w/o rádio and get the controller attention. Mayday call is used on life threatening situations.
      - LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Yeah--the point is that a plane under robot control like that is going to be calling mayday and everyone on the frequency is going to make way for it if possible. You make way for a plane calling mayday like you make way for any vehicle running lights and sirens--but in the sky there's a lot more ability to make room and a lot more enforcement against anyone who doesn't obey.
  - Syonyk 4y ago
    Any reasonably sophisticated jet (of which this is clearly one) will have access to more or less realtime weather data, as well as NOTAMs (notices to airmen) regarding closed runways and such. 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.
    - phire 4y ago
      > 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.
  - dweekly 4y ago
    Pretty sure the system doesn't parse ATC audio but as other posters have noted can use machine readable METARs and other data to get a sense for weather and available runways. (Note that the system does NOT parse NOTAMs yet per https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-autoland/ https://skiesmag.com/features/virtual-co-pilot-garmin-autola...) Beyond that am guessing that it declares its intentions and hopes ATC can pave a clear path. They are generally exceptionally good at doing this for aircraft in distress; just squawk 7700, state your intentions on 121.5, they will make it happen - you're allowed to do literally anything and violate every rule in the book if it's required for safety of flight. You can land on an active military base or a major commercial airport runway if you need to. Mind you, there may be some paperwork to fill out on the ground after, but while you're in the pickle everyone is there to help.
    - sbierwagen 4y ago
      Additional context: there have been major airliner crashes resulting in hundreds of deaths as a result of planes put in holding patterns by ATC that ran out of fuel while waiting to land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3RUWvRRGLQ
- ManuelKiessling 4y ago
  > 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. But does it run Doom?
- nopzor 4y ago
  also worth mentioning - the vision jet is afaik the only single jet passenger jet that is fully certified.
  - stevehawk 4y ago
    I think you meant to say "single pilot passenger jet" that is fully certified, and if so, that statement is not correct. The Phenom, Citation, and several others are.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      For a layman, what does certification mean? Certified for what?
      - numpad0 4y ago
        I suppose GP meant to say “single engine non-turboprop turbofan/turbojet private jet that are FAA certified to operate in the US with appropriate civilian licenses”. 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.
      - captainoats 4y ago
        Certification is the process of getting an aircraft design/model approved by the FAA for sale/use. There are 3 phases for GA commercially available aircraft, type certification (design approved), production certification (manufacturing approved), and airworthiness certification (plane tested, and ready for sale to the public) Usually when someone says a plane has received its certification they mean it’s ‘airworthiness certification’, so the final approval by the FAA.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Each commercially ised or sold aircraft has to come from a certified Desogn Organisation, has to be built by a certified Production Organisation (in most cases the same company, aerospace legallish Airbus and Boeing have a DO and a PO which arw separate entities as far as authorities are converned), needs an Type Certificate (achieved after successful flight testing and to be redone if there are configuration and design changes) and has to be maintained by a certified maintenance organisation and operated by a certified operator (continued airworthymess is a operator thing, just don't ask me any details on that, I work on the PO and touched some maintenance stuff in my life so far). Usually, EASA and FAA cross certify, making it easier to get one if you have the other already. Fascinating stuff, aerospace certification.
- threatripper 4y ago
  > where the autopilot lands the aircraft in case of Pilot incapacitation OEFGR could have used that. Their autopilot just continued to fly straight until they ran out of fuel and spiraled down into the sea.
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    It needs to be manually activated.
    - pholbrook 4y ago
      "The G3000 also monitors pilot activity/inactivity and cabin pressure and can automatically engage Autoland or Emergency Descent Mode if no activity is detected." - Arstechnica article. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/this-system-from-garmin-can-land-a-private-plane-when-your-pilot-cant/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/this-system-from-garmin...
- Animats 4y ago
  Has Safe Return yet been used in an emergency? I've seen the demo videos, but haven't seen any news reports of it being used for real. 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.
  - dweekly 4y ago
    Didn't this have to add a lot more automation that goes beyond what a typical Cirrus with Perspective/Perspective+ would offer? Not just the radar altimeter and automated gear extension but autothrottle, flaps, braking, an auto-flare, etc...
johntb86 4y ago
What sort of circumstances would they use this parachute? Engine failure? In a spin?
- _s 4y ago
  Nearly always in the event of an engine failure or an unrecoverable attitude; which may be a spin. 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.
- Gracana 4y ago
  Engine failure, running out of fuel, stalls, spins, midair collisions, disorientation, etc. Cirrus has a history of CAPS deployments, linked in the article and copied here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History
  - hackitup7 4y ago
    Very impressive to see how many people were able to walk away from these incidents, I wonder what the counts of injury or worse would look like without this system? Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Small plane pilots are generally “not as experienced as they could be” and so Cirrus pilots are trained “when in doubt pop it out” as you might be able to successfully crash land or make it to a landing field, but the chute doesn’t work below a certain altitude.
      - AYBABTME 4y ago
p_l 4y ago
It's not unique to Cirrus, but Cirrus is probably most well known for having made bigger and heavier planes with BRS
- lisper 4y ago
  > It's not unique to Cirrus Not any more, but Cirrus introduced this technology to general aviation.
  - tristanb 4y ago
    The BRS was produced and patented by another company, then purchased by Cirrus who were the first to include it as standard equipment. But not the first in aviation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
  - p_l 4y ago
    Cirrus only made the first in terms of standard type certified aircraft in USA, BRS in ultralight and experimental class were common by then.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  What is BRS?
  - krisoft 4y ago
    Ballistic Recovery System. It is a parachute afixed to the airframe which can be deployed by the pilot. It is named that because the parachute is pulled out of its housing by a small solid-fueled rocket. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems
  - chinathrow 4y ago
    The manufacturer of those rescue systems. https://brsaerospace.com/ https://brsaerospace.com/
hugh-avherald 4y ago
It's no longer considered a last-resort measure. Cirrus training now says to consider it as a first resort.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Indeed, you need to consider CAPS early because it requires altitude, in a plane with a problem you are presumably losing altitude, maybe rapidly, so it won't be long before you can't use CAPS. By then you need to have either decided to use it, or picked some other course of action so that you don't need it. 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)
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    > 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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32802182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32802182
  - nradov 4y ago
    Even zero/zero ejection seats can be outside the safe envelope if the aircraft is at low altitude, and is either inverted or has a negative sink rate.
- imglorp 4y ago
  As a glider pilot I find this mindset disappointing. Every aviator must have a constantly updating array of "what if" situations and planned responses: "Right now, where's my best landing spot and how would I get lined up for that?" etc. It leads to a chess-like thinking ahead mindset which brings all kinds of benefits. "Whelp I'll just pull the lever if something goes wrong" robs you of that. Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick and rudder skills were contributory.

nopzor 4y ago

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.

7952 4y ago
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.
kloch 4y ago
> 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. https://youtu.be/DVXob_B3Cck 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.
- V-eHGsd_ 4y ago
  > It’s a really cool aircraft but It’s nowhere close to the speed or service ceiling of most private jets. 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).
4y ago

api 4y ago

Is scaling such a thing to a passenger aircraft feasible?

hef19898 4y ago
Short answer, no. Mostly due to weight, speed, flight altitudes and different certification criteria.
teruakohatu 4y ago
I don't see why not but passenger aircraft are incredibly safe and the pilots are usually very experienced with at least in co-pilot. Even more so if you exclude war and runway related accidents which wouldn't be helped by a parachute.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  A parachute in the right place could help some of those landing/runway incidents too. But hard to imagine many pilots deploying the chute on a landing they thought they were good for.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Chutes take some period of time before they begin slowing the aircraft. If distance to impact is less than the distance to deploy the chute, the chute does not help.
    - CryptoBanker 4y ago
      Not true, I think. Even a partial deployment will help provide drag and reduce aircraft velocity
      - Syonyk 4y ago
        But they also come at the expense of control. Once you pop the chute, you're a passenger, you no longer have the ability to control or point the airplane in any preferred direction. 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.

ouid 4y ago

"no life threatening injuries", but notably did not walk away from the crash. There's a lot in between those two.

dmix 4y ago
I you watch the video of a previous CAPS landing over water, the landings can still be a bit rough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU But obviously 10x better than the alternative.
marcinzm 4y ago
Two out of three people walked away.
zymhan 4y ago
> One occupant was seriously injured, and two of the three occupants received minor injuries. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Looking at those photos, it seems likely the injury was probably because a tree branch probably smashed through the cabin. Not really the parachutes fault...
- dmix 4y ago
  That’s a cool website, summary, sources, and accessible data…
dylan604 4y ago
so, not a good landing if the definition of a good landing is any landing you can walk away from

ilamont 4y ago

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.

bambataa 4y ago
They’re in a simulator, aren’t they?
- drakythe 4y ago
  You mean they trained for this in a simulator? Probably yes. Was this incident in a simulator? Nope. This was a live pull in a real world scenario. Edit: ah I see, the video footage. I was unable to watch due to mobile. My apologies!
  - yathern 4y ago
    They're saying that the attached video in the article is from a simulator training. The video is not of the real life usage that just occurred.
  - rossdavidh 4y ago
    Demonstration in embedded video is a simulator, though.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    The embedded video is in a simulator. The article contains no pictures or video related to a real world deployment.
bragr 4y ago
>It's putting a remarkable degree of trust in an automated system, which, if there were some edge case failure, would be fatal. You are doing that every time you climb in an aircraft if it has a FADEC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC

heyflyguy 4y ago

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.

zymhan 4y ago
Based on the preliminary report, it seems like bad weather? https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-...
LamboJ 4y ago
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.
- darknavi 4y ago
  Using any parachute in stormy/rainy conditions sounds terrifying.

throw0101c 4y ago

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. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA 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 4y ago
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.
- k1w1 4y ago
  This is an often repeated, but completely false observation. The reality is that Cirrus and Diamond dominate the market for new piston singles [1]. If you want to buy a piston aircraft with the latest safety features, performance, comfort and training, then Cirrus is the number one choice. Cirrus has the number 1, 3 & 6 top selling aircraft (all have the same airframe and avionics with different engines) and thus dominates new sales. 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-02-23-2022-0730.pdf https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2021ShipmentReport-02-2...

JCM9 4y ago

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.

rkagerer 4y ago

Has a CAPS save ever injured a bystander or destroyed expensive property like a house? (Not saying an uncontrolled landing couldn't do the same, just curious about the history)

pmyteh 4y ago
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.

pigtailgirl 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8 -- demo - cool --

dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago

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.

fibonacc 4y ago
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.
- dehrmann 4y ago

jsonne 4y ago

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.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago

Yes, a hull write-off is expensive, but passenger injuries and/or fatalities are even more expensive.