4 ms·

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.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  > 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.
  - boarnoah 4y ago
    Interesting, never heard of that reputation being associated with more modern turboprops like TBMs. 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?
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    I've only heard the "dentist killers" phrase used in association with V-tail aircraft.
    - scrumper 4y ago
      Yeah. When I was learning to fly (early 2000s) I heard “fork-tailed doctor killer” a lot in reference to the Beechcraft Bonanza. Never dentists though, but maybe that was just my flying club’s biases.
    - pseingatl 4y ago
      Which the Cirrus is. Is there a reason they selected this design?
      - ramesh31 4y ago
        Which the Cirrus is. Is there a reason they selected this design? 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.

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.

ramesh31 4y ago
> 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.
- boarnoah 4y ago
  Interesting, never heard of that reputation being associated with more modern turboprops like TBMs. 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?
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  I've only heard the "dentist killers" phrase used in association with V-tail aircraft.
  - scrumper 4y ago
    Yeah. When I was learning to fly (early 2000s) I heard “fork-tailed doctor killer” a lot in reference to the Beechcraft Bonanza. Never dentists though, but maybe that was just my flying club’s biases.
  - pseingatl 4y ago
    Which the Cirrus is. Is there a reason they selected this design?
    - ramesh31 4y ago
      Which the Cirrus is. Is there a reason they selected this design? 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.