Second Skycatcher crash

[GAHorn]

"The plot thickens", as they say. It's still a piece of Cr-- airplane. Cessna should re-start the 150/152 line. If they want an LSA then re-engine that airframe and leave off all the unnecessaries.

[SteveF]

I don't get it.
The NTSB says the chute did open but did not release as designed for the test aircraft. Says the pilot stayed with the plane all the way down and a few other discrepancies. Looks like Cessna spokesperson and NTSB are not in sync.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 4357&key=1

Ah !!!
As I look closer at 3stripes post it is about the September crash not the March crash.

[c170b53]

Or hows about a exact replica of a 170 but made out of composite materials!

[GAHorn]

Well, if they wanted a LSA, wouldn't it be a really simple thing to have a 150, with fewer ribs, lighter skins, foam-filled tail surfaces, smaller gas tanks, fewer instruments, plastic-shell interior, Rotax engine and castering nosewheel on a tubular strut (a-la Caravan)? That thing could be up-and-flying in a few months, built in the USA, and already be a well-accepted design.

[hilltop170]

Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work. "It looks to me that the parameters were pretty exceptional," he said. "It was an unusual situation." ......Oliver, of Cessna, noted that the BRS system on the accident aircraft was a standard chute and was not a specially designed spin chute, which is sometimes used in flight testing.

WTF? Over.

Wouldn't ANY situation in which the chute would be deployed be termed exceptional??? and unusual??? And if I'm going to have a ballistic chute on my plane (which I'm not going to) I damn sure would want it to work in a spin. Looks like they were just grasping for an acceptable excuse.

[GAHorn]

That's the problem BRS is facing with their product. ANY failure is going to require vigorous defense and more than one or two failures is going to result in probably company-failure. (Not to mention the lawsuits when it fails. I wouldn't want to be holding any of their stock or their underwriter's.)

[voorheesh]

One of the biggest hazards with ballistic parachutes is for first responders who show up to accidents where the system was not deployed. The Cirrus BRS system is rocket powered and exits the airplane canister at a speed of over 100mph. It tears embedded cables out of the fuselage that could cut a guy in two if he was standing in the wrong place. To deploy the system is as simple as pulling a small handle in the overhead of the cockpit. Cirrus and the FAA put on an effort to educate firemen and police on this subject and I recall that the rep stated that if a Cirrus is blocking the 405 in LA, leave it there until you get professional help to disable the system. The reason Cirrus used them in the first place is because one of the founders was in a mid air and reportedly wanted an airplane with at least a chance of survival. If you check the accident stats on Cirrus, there are undoubtedly people alive today because of the system. Of course George is right in that some inexperienced pilots have gotten in way over their heads due to this apparent security blanket. And in some cases the system did not save the day due to being deployed outside its operating parameters (altitude and airspeed). I have been lucky enough to get a checkout in the Cirrus and can tell you it is a great flying airplane, that if operated properly, raises the bar of aviation safety.

[4stripes]

http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/2008-ga ... ecord.aspx

This link to Cirrus "safety " record clearly shows the 172 approximately 3 times safer than the SR 22 (regarding fatalities)!


Strange that Cirrus would post it. I'm sure there are specific instances where a parachute would help (ie midair), but like having armed airline pilots, the risks may outweigh the benefits.

Cheers

[jrenwick]

http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/2008-ga ... ecord.aspx

This link to Cirrus "safety " record clearly shows the 172 approximately 3 times safer than the SR 22 (regarding fatalities)!

Strange that Cirrus would post it. I'm sure there are specific instances where a parachute would help (ie midair), but like having armed airline pilots, the risks may outweigh the benefits.

Cheers

These data show Cirrus very close to the average for the entire single-engine fleet, and significantly safer than a BE36, which is probably its closest competition.

The parachute is at least as much a marketing factor as a safety factor, IMHO. Cirrus certainly wouldn't have been as successful without it. A friend of mine was shopping for an airplane ten years ago, and his wife told him "buy the one with the parachute." He's on his third Cirrus now, I believe, and very happy about it.

[GAHorn]

... but like having armed airline pilots, the risks may outweigh the benefits.Cheers

Click to Enlarge

American AirLine Mail Pilots - 1934 (S&W Mod. 10's)

[jrenwick]

The NTSB preliminary report on the Skycatcher crash is out: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/b ... tml#200022

[voorheesh]

Where can we sign up to be test pilots?

[N171TD]

No need to be a pilot. They need crash test dummies.

[bsdunek]

I'm not an aeronautical engineer (just plain old mechanical), but I don't understand why, at this time, they can't design in the spin and other characteristics quite accurately. Just IMHO.

[dacker]

Hey George,
that picture you posted... is that you on the right?

David