Are Planes With Parachutes Really Safer?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- 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.
"Better to go home with a good story than ride your ego into a crater"--wisdom applicable to many situations!
Maybe not.
Well, literally 2 situations, right? CAPS and ejection seats. I'm having a hard time thinking of a third. Crew launch escape system? Gets triggered automatically. Reserve chute? No one is gonna fault you for using that. So yeah, 2 situations.
Agreed... Like every situation imaginable...
It indeed is a good metaphor for life in general, agreed.
Especially ISIS.
I worked at a Cirrus repair center, the biggest problem with the CAPS can be summed up in a direct quote from a Cirrus pilot that came into the shop “The weather was really crappy but I had the chute so I took off anyway “ I had to walk away.
That was one of the theories about the higher accident rate early on. Can't fix stupid.
That's known as the "safety paradox" and it is present in every industry, field, and sport where safety precautions are mandated/available. If you make anything safer, people will be more flippant about the risks. Most commonly seen in passenger cars -- with ever-improving safety features (airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones) and bigger vehicles, according to insurance providers the crash rate per mile has been climbing steadily over the last 20 years (though the injury and fatality rate has at least gone down).
False sense of confidence.
@@daveachuk there was a video on another channel recently about road design, which argued that the tendency to make roads wider, straighter and technically more safer since the 1960s has actually caused more accidents because it has given drivers a feeling of complacency (and encouraged speeding).
I am not a pilot, but I do work in IT, and I see that the downside to making people feel comfortable with technology is that they will do stupid things with it.
@@texasyojimbo When talking about road accidents we also have to keep in mind that distraction causes quite a lot of them. Almost no one had a mobile phone 20 years back, texting wasnt a thing nor did you have fancy entertainment systems or GPS to play around with in most cars.
Well think of it this way, in 100% of accidents, 100% of aircraft that has a chute, has at least one extra option to prevent a catastrophic crash that aircraft without a chute, simply do not have.
I love options.
I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it ^^
*Austrian accent*
I love rumors!
Yes, but that extra option comes with it’s own costs. Monetary costs to produce and install, maintenance costs in inspections and services, and performance costs in extra weight. Particular point about that last note, many people consider airplane performance as a safety feature.
And one more possibilty of failure that can cause an accident.
@@xpeterson Same could be said about airbags and crumple zones. But we have them because despite their costs they do for a fact save lives.
In Germany CAPS systems are mandatory for most ultralights and have "saved" more often than not, and their use is part of pilot license training.
To be honest that is sensible- especially when considering the accident frequency of ultralights.
Naah!! Those Socialist always demanding safety things we dont need!! Naaaah!!
@@hukumbra socio-capitalists aviators live and walk away from crashes in Europe while proud ass capitalists in the west go six feet deep. Good job
@@oliversibbs what ever. If it fits your anti america agenda. Bringing capitalism in aviation video... and you call americans stupid and arrogant 😭 👌
nervie I bet that anti American is American, fucking bunch of whiners in the US anymore. Why do they need their government to force them to do something if they are so much greater. I’d rather have the freedom to choose. Especially in an ultra light. Flying is for the rich for the most part, the one exception is ultralights. The more regulations you place on them the more expensive they get and the more it excludes every day people. Is it dangerous? Well yea I suppose but is it really all that more dangerous than other extreme sports, probably not. And it’s not like they are banned here, we can still put a parachute on if we want. I don’t have to wear a motorcycle helmet in my state, I don’t need my nanny state telling me to wear one, I know what can happen without so I wear one but it’s nice to not be forced into it.
20 years of data in 13 minutes! Great presentation. Thanks Paul.
Back in the good ol' days, I once decided to make a plane in Kerbal Space Program. Only problem was, I'd yet to unlock landing gear. So.. I decided to make the plane "take off" vertically with several small single use rockets that would then detach. To land, parachutes would deploy to safely bring the plane down.
This was probably the safest and most reliable plane I ever built.
Lmfaoooo true kerbal pilot. All I did in that problem was to just take off on the belly, hoping it won’t break apart, and land by ditching the plane by EVAing out of it. It was just a small fatality to flight ratio of 2
ANY landing you can walk away from is a GOOD landing, including a parachute "landing".
Agreed!
was this a line from Madagascar
QuantumRift ; any plane you can use again is a good landing.
Very unoriginal, very stupid..
@@HIHaiki No, it goes back to a cartoon in WW2 in England called Pilot Officer Prune, a hapless character who dishes out timely advice to other Royal Air Force pilots. As a saying it may be even earlier than that as it's one that any pilot might have come up with at any time.
One of the best researched, most clearly presented treatments of the CAPS system I've seen anywhere. Thanks, Paul!
He seems to me to always have done excellent research, is great at explaining, and with a wry humor, self deprecating, and genuinely funny, but VERY logical. I admire him a lot. I listen when he speaks.
Great video and as a Cirrus pilot I attest that the CAPS is always in the back of my mind, or rather 1 foot from my head, if something happens, it’s good to know I have a fighting chance.
Your "CAPS is available" is one of the announcements I always notice in your vids. I like how carefully you fly.
You’re at 2000 feet agl. Let’s assume you didn’t some how lose roll pitch and yaw all at once somehow on a properly maintained aircraft. Why do you choose an uncontrolled “slow” fall at the winds mercy instead of achieving glide path and finding a highway or field? I’m seriously trying to understand.
@@plagueCLUTCH how many people have died after a plane's engine failed and the pilot could not find a safe place to land
I was in high school, I looked up and saw a plane no more than 500 feet in the air. The engine obviously blew out over us, and to my surprise a parachute came out of the plane, and he swung down to the ground. Relatively slow. It was the video with “west ave” at the streetlight.
I wish there were more of these videos. They are informative, and this guy is really funny!
Watch the one on the st barts crash :-)
Pilots tend to be rather dry...
so its refreshing to hear a little personality come out.
@@michaelmccarthy4615 this is a great one!
ua-cam.com/video/99DomTe9JY4/v-deo.html
Paul is a very wise Veteran GA Pilot and really knows his stuff/GA in all forms. The wit/humor, is indeed a bonus for all.🙏🇺🇸👍
I know a good channel...
My dad Rocky Jones (retired USAF fighter pilot and test pilot for Hughes Aircraft Co) was the test pilot and president of "SuperChute" in Newport News, VA back in the late 1980's. They had a Cessna 172 with a canister underneath the belly with a spring loaded drag chute attached to a large zero-porosity parachute. During the first flight test with the FAA and a TV news crew filming he flew to 5000 ft. and then cut the power to simulate an engine failure and pulled the chute. Nothing happened, so he aborted the test. At 3500 ft. however the spring decided to deploy the system after all. It worked, problem was he was spinning wildly because engine was running. He had to manually detach the chute from cockpit with detach system in order to recover from the spin, then he had to dive to regain airspeed to recover. Thankfully he was a great pilot and safely landed. They checked the plane for damage and reloaded it another day, and this time he safely brought it to the ground WITH the parachute, and then had to re-evaluate for any damage and fly the plane again and safely land in order for the test to be a success. Even though it was, the FAA gave them all kinds of grief during the testing about "explosive" bolts, etc. Unfortunately before any more testing could be accomplished my dad was killed in a Formula-1 air race in New Braunsfels, TX in 1990 when an illegally participating (previously reprimanded for earlier races) active NASA shuttle pilot clipped my dad's wing and spun him into a cornfield! He was only 69 and would have celebrated his 100th birthday last week 091420 if he were still alive.
I'm not a pilot and know nothing about airplanes. But I am (among other things) a TV news producer. This video is unusually well written, shot and edited. The graphics -- usually a trouble spot -- were well put together and helped the narration. The on-air talent is superb. He knows what he's doing. Congratulations on a well done video.
To answer a general question several have posed about Cirrus and spins. The Cirrus aircraft spin normally and recover normally. I interviewed a couple of Cirrus developmental test pilots in the early days of the company and they confirmed this. Since the parachute was planned from day one as a safety device, Cirrus proposed and the FAA accepted it as an equivalent level of safety in lieu of full spin testing.
Full spin workups comprise a matrix of 500 or more data sets. Very involved and very expensive. The CAPS allowed Cirrus to bypass that. But if you know how to recover from a spin--idle the power, ailerons neutral, rudder opposite the spin and forward stick--it will recover just like it's supposed to.
To recover from a spin you must be trained as things like spin direction and not to over recover the spin are really important, Im spin trained and it did take me some time to get comfortable in the technique , full blown spins are really disorientating and the average Joe Blow who has probably only done incipient spins is going to die unless he pulls the caps lever ,cheers
@@patrickcoleman3 I disagree with you. I also disagree with the FAA removing spin training from requirements to get your private. I disagree with you in that the "average Joe Blow" is going to die. Pilots need training, that I do agree with you. My instructor did a bunch of aerobatic flying so when we were spinning, he'd sit there and count 1/2 turns. As we got to doing more and I got better and recovering, he would count quarter turns. I never could hit 1/4 turns in recovery. He did and said it was just like playing 4/4 music.
@@jarodmorris611 Give me a reason why,, I`m fully aerobatic trained and i think i know what im talking about. you just cant disagree with someone and dont say why.
@@patrickcoleman3 - "full blown spins are really disorientating [not a real word unless you're British] and the average Joe Blow is going to die". I take you to mean "average Joe Blow pilot", otherwise why even discuss someone that isn't a trained pilot. I don't think you can say the average pilot is going to die. There are also other factors that matter such as altitude, time in aircraft, etc. A spin on turn to final is much different than a spin at 6,000AGL. My only issue with this is that it seems you are speaking in very general terms and grouping a lot of people together and saying they're going to die unless tehy've had extensive spin training. I don't see it the same way or I think we would see many more accidents and unrecoverable spin-related deaths.
@@jarodmorris611 As I said average Joe blow pilots who get in a spin are probably going to crash as you know a full blown spin gets faster after 3 to 4 turns, most average pilots are disorientated by then because its something they don`t expect . Turns onto final and stalling around 500 agl unless you an aerobatic pilot are usually fatal, and Im not British Im Australian. I know when i was training for my license 1988 i was just average and only got better after aerobatic training
I told a flight instructor friend of mine who was also a skydiver like me, that he should put a BRS on his instruction plane. He claimed that the only time he would ever need that is if he had a mid air collision. Well guess what. He had a mid air just a few hours later and died as a result. The other aircraft also went in and both occupants were killed. Being that the collision was wingtip to wing tip, I'm almost certain that a parachute recovery system would have changed the results of this accident.
😆 what a dumbass. You told him.
Damn
Really good argument for a chute. Thank you. That is my main fear and I will consider this as a strong option now.
@@justcommenting4981 especially with the recent crash.
Caps didn't save the people on board the Cirrus that had a midair in Boulder, Colorado.
I'm not a pilot, only an aviation enthusiast, but I mainly come here for Paul's bitingly dry delivery and banger one-liners. The fact that it's dorky aviation facts is even better!
Obvious answer: Yes, if you know what you're doing.
And that'll pretty much cover every other safety related question in aviation.
Mickey Bitsko Yes , has No. Its not a simply Yes , here is why. Let’s ask why it has a parachute , well because it’s not approved for spins ! So is it safer , no not really. Has it saved people that have got in a spin , emergency Yes . So since the airplane safety record is less then most. I have to argue it’s not safer.
@@calebniederhofer678 Well it's a matter of how much the chute contributes to that safety. Is it's weight a cause of that safety record? Or is it just a result of other influences with the aircraft's design.
My nephew had to deploy the parachute a few months back. He had only very minor injuries.
Glad to hear.
what does your nephew do for a living?
@@geddon436 Lives. Now sit down.
@@ramonmoreno8014 ??????
@@geddon436 playing devils advocate but I think he is saying it doesn't matter what he does for a living because he is alive.
At the age of 57 (I'm 58 now) I decided to get my pilots licence because I wanted a plane. I bought a SR22 because of the parachute. It did NOT give me a sense of invincibility and it didn't make me more careless in my responsibility of being a pilot.
You may have bought the plane initially for the chute but as you gained proficiency you likely came to realize you also bought the best flying aircraft in GA....a pleasure to own...and a thrill to fly.
I’m really torn between the SR20 and the DA20/40. I like the CAPS but diamond has the best safety record in the business while Cirrus is barely average enough with CAPS. On the other hand the SR22 is a much more powerful plane. Following UA-camrs it does seem they have a lot of mechanical issues though.
Better to be judged by twelve than be carried by six.
I don't see a relation between juries and CAPS deployment. Even if the airplane destroyed property, it's not a criminal matter or punishable by any criminal statutes that I know of.
This doesn't make sense. Who is going to be in court for using their plane's parachute?
ok roddy rich
@@danielgrahamandrews9293 The parachute caught the plane.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN the meaning of the quote
Good informative video, with decent metrics. One of the reasons many military pilots died - as apposed to ejecting - was the concern their crippled plane might crash into a school or something; hence they rode it out to make sure it crashed in a safe location. So, if you bail out of your plane, you are still liable for whatever it crashes into. The additional advantage of BRS is that both you and the plane are "rescued" and whatever your plane lands on should suffer little to no damage.
Paul, you consistently go a great job making otherwise dry material interesting and even fun to watch! Thank you for being awesome!
A hang-glider buddy of mine has been flying a similar system since his early days in the sport 20+ years ago. Apparently just months after he installed the system the 'chute actually saved his bacon when a nasty thermal inverted his glider. It wasn't pretty, but he walked away.
Glad your buddy got to stick around a little longer :)
Hang-gliding is where the full plane parachute systems got their start. They saved a lot of lives.
Was his aircraft totaled ?
@@FinalLugiaGuardian Aircraft? I think you need to google "hangglider" and see what that is....
@@titter3648 I know it is a glider that consists of a single wing upon which is attached a harness you are strapped into in a prone position and a metal bar you control the glider from. And yes they can crash and be totaled too. I wanted to know if his glider was damaged beyond repair after deploying the parachute.
The last i read these systems had saved 147 pilots lives. So you folks who want to snort at them.. good luck to you
Them 147 people must feel so silly now. 😋
Don't forget to include the passengers lives saved also!
You should have watched the video first. This number is bogus because it assumes that everyone in a plane when CAPS is pulled would be dead without it, which is false. With that said, it's a great system (BRS is at my home airport SGS) which definitely increases safety.
@@robertmay9287 its only used on very small planes mostly microlights and LSA's so im thinking if they used the chutes.. knowing they just toasted their very expensive 'toy' it was probably life or death. Im constantly astonished that aviation is incredibly resistant to new technology while crowing about being high tech. Avionics is the most obvious example. People put $40,000 into their dash because it's "certified" when in reality non GA alternatives should and are starting to cost 2 or 3% of that
@@michaelacree7896 And those on the ground.
seriously i hate those snobby pilots who mock people with a parachute (they sound jealous to me)
you know back in the day people also said why do you need an airbag or abs or seatbelts
but they have saved countless lives and are now a mandatory feature in cars
well in a decade or two this probably will be the same for ballistic parachutes in planes
and once people accept it and it becomes the norm we will not have this discussion anymore .
Entirely different circumstances, the real world use case is as far as I can tell rather rare and wouldn’t make a huge difference in the statistics.
Better more modern engine controls, flight management, com and radar technologies would all make real differences.
My issue with these is that in the cases they CAN be used you would be better off just flying the plane down.
Some legitimate use cases include flying over seriously rough terrain like heavy woods or rocky ground with no real landing opportunities, and over water where small fixed gear craft are likely to flip.
The problem is, you probably shouldn’t be doing that to begin with, if you do find your self over such terrain in most cases it not going to last for long and you aught to climb to a higher altitude to give you the best chance of landing safely.
Lastly, you are making the mistake of looking at carefully calibrated and automatic systems like SRS and ABS and you are comparing those to a system that requires a pilot to make another choice. A choice they effectively removes whatever control they might have still had.
For the vast majority of crashes this chute can’t have any effect, you can’t deploy it on takeoff or landing.
@@DrewLSsix Well... how do engine controls, flight management, com, and radar solve for a midair collision? Do they help an incapacitated pilot's non-pilot wife or friend in the passenger seat?
I think the added insurance of a CAPS may be worth the extra weight/cost in terms of peace of mind. I know it would for me.
@@DrewLSsix video proves opposite of everything you said.
@@DrewLSsix you do realize i was talking about people like you.
seriously it does not take a genius to find a lot more use cases for that parachute than you list . But now for the most important need for this technology a lot of pilots do NOT fly alone , we take our families and friends along . With very little training you can teach someone to send out a distress call , slow the plane down if needed and deploy the chute in case that the pilot is
incapacitated
for whatever reason .
It literally gives non pilots a very good chance to save the day now tell me please i beg you HOW IS THAT NOT A GOOD THING. I am so sick of this debate its not even funny anymore
@@androidfarmer8863 exactly you nailed it. thank you
Paul is the best at reading from a script while giving a paced, natural presentation.
Imagine how much more you would learn about GA and how much you would laugh, if you could fly with Paul on a weekend cross country/camping trip. Would be one of the best x-country trips ever, for any GA Pilot!👍🇺🇸
Great video Paul. Your analysis has provided a new perspective on Cirrus and the CAPS that make a lot of sense. I am finally (turning 55 this year) a serious student pilot with high hopes of eventually owning my own plane. I have been looking at Cirrus since the late 90's and your video crystallized the reason why I have always like the idea behind CAPS. Thank you!
Great analogy with the transition to ejection seats
You guys are on to something here! I love the production, information, and presentation style. Very cool and well done, Thank you for this data!!
Great videos, great writing, great presentation!
Chris Aplin Great comment, great sentence, great grammar!
Sobering but excellent presentation. Thank you.
Paul
What a great video. I'm sharing this with my doubting Thomas friends. I love Cirrus.
I've thought of this idea decades ago, and I'm sure dozens of others thought the same thing. Glad somebody put it into practice.
I don't want to be a dot on your annoying graphs. haha
would have liked but it has 69 likes¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Chute doesn’t guarantee that tho
@@christopherhand4836 better a Mae West or streamer than one's flapping one's arms to attempt to slow the ground rushing up to hit you.
@@spvillano better to actually understand what you’re talking about and how to fly than rely on the comfort of something not always available...
@@christopherhand4836 Without chute guarantee anything ?
"Are Planes With Parachutes Really Safer?" Ask this question when you're falling out of the sky.
Planes don't "fall"...they glide, giving you time to think. Train for engine failures and you'll survive.
@@xbpbat21x Planes literally "fall" from the sky.....what the hell are you talking about.. there are spins, stalls, frame's failures.. etc etc etc...
@@Trikipum you must not be a pilot...
xbpbat21x once a plane stops creating lift (stall) it literally drops like a rock in the sky
@@dujuanjohnson5025 obviously you know nothing about flying...you really should do some research before posting...of course a plane can stall and lose altitude...even if you do nothing, most aircraft can recover on thier own...not continue falling "like a rock". With proper training you can prevent this situation...and with further (required) training to get out of this situation should it occur. Please try not to comment on topics you know nothing about in the future.
Merry Christmas!
Brilliant. Ultra lite pilots have been using parachutes on there aeroplanes for many years now with NO problems at all.
Always just the right amount of sarcasm to get the point across, keep it entertaining, and start my morning off in the right direction. Have a great day Paul.
Paul Bertorelli is my celebrity. I am curious if he writes his own script. His subtle and smart humorous observations are shockingly refreshing. For example, in this video his mention of Russian dashcam videos was epic.
Agreed.
TROLL
He mentions them in most videos.
subent, I was wondering the same thing myself. Paul wears his words like a friendly old coat, so I guess the script is his own . . .
I enjoy Paul's candour and dry humour. Have you seen the aviation LED lamp outtakes, where he's swearing like a sailor! Haha :)
Another successful deployment in Florida yesterday. I will say I'd rather be in a plane with a parachute than one without. Nice video
Yet another great, informative, well structured, interesting, and entertaining presentation by Paul. Thank You.
I don't expect anyone to believe me, nor am I hunting for a proverbial "back pat" (subconscious excluded).... but it is SO refreshing to see this implemented in aviation with statistical life-saving presence.
-- The thought came to me of this invention at 13 years of age- I am now 48. After a GREAT time flying my first stick and rudder aircraft in my first outing with my grandpa Capone at Osh Kosh (flown there from Chicago suburbs in his little Piper Colt.) The few people I had mentioned this concept to at the time were rather perplexed, yet intrigued at the notion. The year was 1983. I am so happy this works and thank God for the opportunity to see it's fruition. After all... He was the one who put it across my mind, so He gets the credit!
Let's hope it continues and really "takes off"! :)
Your best video ever, to my eyes and ears
I always enjoy learning from you
looking forward to the next one
Whenever I see an article or video from Mr Bertorelli , I know I will learn something new and will inevitably smirk with his acerbic wit
Thanks Paul for the insight into securing aviation and for the well done research and resulting statistics. You make sure UA-cam's intellectual and educational level remains interesting. Good on ya!
Love your work Paul! Great, informative video!
I had no idea there were planes like this, fascinating. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Paul has been in this business for a long time. He is very knowledgeable and his presentation style is great. Others making UA-cam videos could learn a lot from him.....
Not to minimize the success of the BSR parachutes for Cirrus, but the history should also mention the following as well.
My understanding at the time, at least one of the reasons the parachute was "mandatory" for Cirrus was they needed it since they could not meet the FAA stall spin recovery requirements, that the Lancair Columbia 350/400 and later Cessna branded Corvallis or TTx could (no parachute).
These 2 ,(Columbia and Cirrus) we're in a head to head competition for the same market segment. The FAA approved the parachute in lieu of the recovery issues being resolved. Again this is what I read in aviation news publications at that time.
Reason this wasnt mention in the video, is because thats incorrect. Lie that was passed around that isnt factual. The cirrus was designed around the parachute from day one, as the video hints at at the beginning. FAA did just pull out of their butt "only way we will certify this is if you put a parachute on it".. thats not how that works. The reason it is "mandatory" (part of the airworthiness certificate) is because of how it was certified, AND pulling the chute being the official print out in the POH on how to recover from a spin... NOT the same thing as it cant recover. Look up the engineering and testing interviews. They spun the cirrus hundreds of times. It can absolutely recover from a spin
And yes, you did read it in publications by that Dick guy.. was a very popular article, that was 100% incorrect. a decade later he wrote another article taking back is negative comments on the cirrus
@@billyhogge8803 I guess I stand corrected, unless some additional evidence contrary to your claims comes forward here. Maybe the recovery techniques were not reliable enough, otherwise why would that be the 1st solution for spin recovery ?
Billy Hogge not to argue but I often hear that Cirrus TEST PILOTS and ENGINEERS spin the aircraft countless times and it recovers well. Yes, I would hope the people who designed it knows how to get it to fly well. The issue I have with it is, 99.8% Cirrus pilots aren’t Cirrus test pilots, so if I spin occurs, you totaled a perfectly good working aircraft in lieu of a parachute. I truly believe a Cirrus TEST PILOT can and will recover it from a spin way easier than a regular Cirrus pilot. I honestly don’t think it recovers as good as the ENGINEERS AND TEST PILOTS say for the average prop pilot.
@@danblumel they had already done the testing on the parachute and had it approved, when it came down to it it was a safety thing. 99% of the time if you are getting in a spin on accident, its low to the ground, base to final. Cirrus wanted to instill that in that situation you only have a few seconds to pull the chute, not try to correct the spin, so they purposed to the FAA to have the parachute be the official recovery, and thats how it happened
Props for not mentioning you’re an avid skydiver even once.
I’ve known you for I don’t know how many years and I just stumbled on to you here a couple days ago. Great stuff!
"Has it saved lives?" is a very different question from, "Is it safer?"
"Has it saved lives?" addresses the performance on a case by case bases. That is, are there any cases where the system has saved people in a situation where they would have died without the system?
"Is it safer?" is asking about overall safety. In other words, does it increase your chance of surviving any given flight.
It's a bit clearing if we reverse on of the questions and apply it to seat belts in cars.
"Can wearing a seat belt in a car kill you?" and "Do seat belts in cars make you safer?"
There are times when wearing a seat belt might cause you to die in a crash you would otherwise have survived, but in the vast majority of cases the seat belt is much more likely to save your life than end it. So we see that the answer to the both questions is "yes", but the first question can be misleading.
If I just told you, "Using this might kill you." you may not want to use it, even if using increases your chance of surviving.
I love stories where a smoker's life is saved by their habit. Either there cigarette lighter stops a bullet when they get shot, or they step out for a smoke break at the right time.
But just because it saved in in one rare case doesn't mean it didn't kill you years later when you develop smoking a related disease that ends up killing you.
Right, instead of including a parachute.. How about slightly increasing the tail feather's size for better stall stability. I too hate anecdotal stories when the obvious truth is that this aircraft isn't as stable as others that are near it's performance. Oh hey, aircraft tend to stall on the turn from base to final. Let's put a parachute in that does NOTHING...
@@thengine7 I don't know how stable the plane is compared to others, but I do know that everyone makes mistakes. And stalling the aircraft at 1500 feet AGL will almost always kill you.
And clearly, the parachute *DOES* help in some cases.
It comes down to cost-benefit. Is the added safety of the system justify it's weight and additional cost?
I have been riding in cars my entire life. I have always *ALWAYS* worn my seat belt. But in all of the years of wearing a seat belt, I've only used them once in the way they were meant to be used. Only a fraction of a second out of nearly 50 years of driving/riding in cars. Yet I still think the added cost and weight of the seat belt is justified.
I should qualify what I mean by "used." Wearing a seat belt is not using the seat belt. You are using the seat belt to stay in your seat when experiencing high G-loads like those found in a car accident. If everything is normal the seat belt is just there, unused, but ready to step up when it's needed.
Thengine Exactly. If one has the $$ to purchase an aircraft of this caliber, i.e: SR22T then maybe skip cirrus all together, get your multi engine rating and fly a DA42 or DA62 twin which are both inherently safer than Cirrus.
@@austinmaness8339 Twin engines are not always safer than one.
On the surface you might think losing 1 engine out of 2 will cause a 50% loss of thrust, but don't forget about the drag of the dead engine. When calculated a twin engine airplane losing one engine means losing 80% of your available thrust.
The Cessna 337 was famous for being unable to maintain altitude with just the rear engine. But at least with the 337 you don't have the issue of asymmetric thrust.
@@erictaylor5462If you can’t recover from a stall at 1500 Ft agl, you should not be flying a airplane.
I normally don't comment on videos but this video is another one in AVweb series that is just amazing. Comedy paired with some sarcasm and cynicism, but still providing us with some serious information, this is simply great. And BTW I had to stop the video at least three times because I had to laugh so much that I couldn't follow anymore.
The way you slip in dry comic references makes me smile.
A great presentation. As a Hang Glider pilot I flew with a rocket deployed reserve for a few years. It gives us a lower opening altitude than the standard hand deployed reserve 'chute. This is important if you fly close to terrain. Hang glider pilots fly with a hook knife to cut away the parachute bridal after landing because the wind can drag you across highways or into water or over objects etc. Once the 'chute is deployed you have no control over where you will end up. A carbon fiber airframe conducts electricity and resin burns so ending up in high tension power lines will mean a fire that might be fatal. Getting dragged into highway traffic by a stiff wind can be fatal too. I'm glad Boris finally got his invention FAA certified. I met him in 1991 and he had been waiting for certification even then. Of course the reserve won't work in all situations. I saw a single engine plane come out of a cloud bank at about 2000' in an over speed state. The wings fluttered for a second and then snapped off. A parachute would not have helped at that speed.
A different topic next but I don't know where else to bring it up. Why do general aviation pilots fly right through the hang gliding area in Ellenville New York at altitudes that the hang gliders fly at? I've had so many close calls while flying there that I gave up flying there. The hang gliding area is posted right on the sectional but apparently that means very little. The day before holiday weekends are the worst for this. This is a serious danger.
been thinking about a real rocket fuel system for slowing falls from rather low but deadly height , a rocket can maybe be not very heavy and have enough push or pull on a wire to slow a body down before impact ,attached to body or on a wire or string and fire directed a bit from it but then body will burn so need suit or dunno , conputer controlled w height sensors , another way maybe a few small enough explotions under body , and yea airbags.
Rockets burn very hot and must be oriented away from an object. Those are two big problems so it's not practical. The burn time for a reserve parachute deployment is 0.8 seconds which is just enough time to get the parachute bridal to line stretch distance. This was an improvement over the ballistic deployment method where a charge blasts the parachute out of a container but an equal amount of energy was in recoil that was not safe to the airframe.
@@mikeh2520 oh so short time so thats better to use but also when falling near buildings trees they can tear the chute , anyway if its oriented away from body and hed by computer or , its better to have a burnt limb than deadly crash
I love his Joe Friday down-to-earth approach to this subject!! And was funny too!
McGyver777ATGMAIL reminds me of the brilliant narrator from the movie, Endless Summer.
Wouldn't know a thing about the benefits of having, or not having, access to a parachute.
But having the 2 of them in harness every jump, sure was a physical & mental comfort!
-Former U.S. Paratrooper Sgt. 82nd Abn. Inf. :)
😎
Paul....Thanks again for the highly enlightening video and the humor is great too !!
Bob Ninemire “humor”? That’s up for debate!
@El Chapo i like it
Probably the most professional
And informative you tube
Announcer !!! So well done !
Thanks
Interesting enough the Diamond Aircraft impacts the ground at a much slower rate than the Cirrus. If you bungee the stick in your lap and pull the power it stalls, noses down picks up speed, flies then slows again and stalls. Repeat until impact with ground at about 500 to 700 fpm, half that of CAPS on Cirrus. Note also that Diamond leads the pack in safety! All said at the end of the day, Diamond gets my cash, by the way, the view from a Diamond is incredible and it’s a lot of fun to fly!
Wait, what about if it drops a wing when you stall it. Or hits the ground when dipping down instead. see LDJ instructor gets killed. student survives disabled.
It doesn’t drop a wing, neither does the icon. As to hitting the ground, the 500 Feet per Minute (est depending on weight) is I if you hit nose down. If you are lucky enough to gain airspeed after the down pitch and arrive nose not stalled then the touchdown would be zero FPS
How does that work if you have hydro failure though? Or. Clip a wing ? Or. Icing ?
Great vid. I had that idea as a schoolkid, but were too nervous to share it with folks. It a great idea. And kudos to Cirrus for the free training and implementation of this system It has cost them a lot in experimentation and failures, but now the just have to get building bigger and safer planes so the parachute remains unused. Obtw. Free idea - If you had inflatable pontoones stored around the hull it could also float.
7:44
SCUBA has a similar problem.
People don’t like to drop their weight belt.
Things go wrong, _let me fix this whilst hypoxia sets in._ 🤦🏼♂️
Now you’re unconscious and stuck to sea floor.
I lived in Duluth Mn. back in 1998 when this was fresh into production and it is just now making the news. It was a big deal in Duluth and the facility got quite a lot of attention locally. I am glad to see it is effective and put to good use...
Love your drrrrry sense of humour; and obviously the great content. Respect!
great video! I flew my friends Cirrus 20. Loved the space in the cockpit with out the yoke. $12K to repack the shoot after 10 yrs.... Standard maintenance.
Paul has been an unique resource in GA for decades because there's no room for bullsh-t in aviation and he's 100% bullsh_t-free. Witty too.
Lovely piece of journalism. Refreshing coming in this day and age from a country that is full of quick thinking and fearful decision making journalism. Nice jab (that’s how you guys produce job)
I think the biggest concern with CAPS and any BRS system is just the false sense of security some pilots might get. It's ok to think to yourself "It's ok, if anything happens, I've got a parachute." It's not OK to think "It's ok for me to push my/the aircraft's/fuel limits, I've got a parachute." Some attribute high accident rates to this - I have no idea if it's true, but it's logical.
It is most likely not true. People said the same about ABS brakes and airbags on cars too. It will make people over confident they said, but research showed that to not be the case. For example i saw a paper on taxi drivers in Oslo i think it was before and after ABS brakes was standard, and it showed significantly less accidents after the taxis had ABS brakes.
There was a study on seatbelts that was done which seemed to show that people buckled up drove faster. I can absolutely believe this is the case. When driving a vintage VW bug with no belts and the safety measures of a tin can I drive much more conservatively and defensively than in a modern car. I think the key might be passive vs active safety. Things like seatbelts, parachutes, etc, you know they are there. Stuff like traction control, ABS, you tend to forget about. Most people likely don't even know they exist on their vehicle. What's interesting about CAPS is that it's most effective at high altitude and least effective close to the ground, where most accidents occur.
Hey man, great video! Just a small hint from a design perspective: keep the volume of the effects lower than your voice, your audience will appreciate!🤞🏽
As a writer, I found it really amusing that you've managed to break Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered with 'no'."
This was a really great video!
After the recent mid-air collision between a Fairchild Metroliner and a Cirrus SR 22, I had a hankering to revisit this video. What would almost certainly have been a tragedy with any other small plane hitting that Metroliner turned into the best publicity for the Cirrus CAPS yet.
Lol it puked the parachute out the back haha. That was funny.
I like the fact that you have a kid’s sense of humor. You must love fart jokes
Thanks Paul. Always a insightful pleasure to watch your free GA tuition on youtube.
another view is that it could be a life saving option for your family or friends flying with you, heaven forbid something happens to you as PIC
Also if you are shooting an approach in IMC and you lose your engine, and you don't have another engine or a parachute, you're gonna have a bad time. Most planes involved in midair collisions crash. Better safe than sorry.
When I flew aircraft equipped with ejection seats, we trained on, studied up and briefed our ejection system's capabilities prior to every flight. During the preflight briefing, we covered the capabilities of the seat, decision points on when we would eject or stay with the jet and techniques for maximizing our survival chances (zoom and boom). I am glad to see Cirrus attempting to train in the same mentality into their customers, a mentality first learned in the 1950s and clearly applicable to aircraft parachute recovery systems. The biggest lesson learned from these experiences is that the pilot needs to make the ejection or deployment decision on the ground prior to flight, before a potential situation develops and exceeds the capability of the system. Otherwise, he or she will most likely wait too long and the situation will progress beyond where rescue is possible.
If one of these parachutes save even one life, I'd say it's worth it regardless of how effective they may or may not be.
That's dumb. If a safety add-on causes more issues to the total system safety compared to a system without the safety add-on, then the add-on is clearly a piece of shit, even if it saved a single life one time.
It is not so easy to get good quality Cirrus training in all parts of the world. This brilliant 13 minutes video alone will surely save lives !
Pull early, pull often! Call me crazy but I’m not flying at night in a single engine piston without a BRS. Paul you neglect to mention that the BRS is a great option for the Cessna 172-182.
Will: Wimp.
Yeah, real men ride her in like a lawn dart.
Craneman I’m sure people had a similar type reaction when the stall horn was first created.”
Same. not saying i havent done it before, but 1,600 hours over the past 12 years and i have no desire to fly a single piston at night without a BRS. Day time, i dont like it, but it doesnt stop me. Yea i could use a 6 seater, but the BRS is the reason i have owned 2 SR22's now
@@KB4QAA You say that until you die in an potentially survivable incident and wish you have one of these.
I've heard that Cirrus in order to assure parachutes will be deployed regularly, have also fitted these small planes with two extra-small fuel tanks that only allow for one of them to deliver to the engine whilst also allowing only for a small imbalance between the left and right tank's contents AND whilst they do NOT balance automatically, the pilot having to switch between left and right tank regularly.
It saved my life as my pipistrel virus sw threw half a blade over a very large city. I jumped out without a scratch.
Thats what I dont like about the BRS... I think when faced with an emergency situation a pilot (and I would include myself if faced with that situation) is instinctively inclined to pull the lever instead of seeking other options. Even yourself who had to use it think that you would have died if you did not have it and in a pipistrel! You can land that thing in a few hundread feet at 40kts with the engine off and the virus has a what 12:1 glide ratio ? plenty of time to select a survivable landing site, I am sure you would have made it out just fine without the BRS as well, in a cirrus maybe not so much. But I really dont blame you for your decision, I am really wondering if I would have pulled the handle as well in that situation and I think I would have! Glad you made it out just fine!
@@flyingmechanic1 I see your point but when you have no place to land, why would you not pull it? I literally was in the centre of a very large city, instead of crashing into a building I was able to walk away without any injury, they should be required on all aircraft. I'll take my life over an destroying an aircraft any day.
@@DarrylZubot from the pictures of your accident it seemed like you landed in the middle of an open field thats why I was wondering about the urge to pull the chute instead of trying to do an emergency landing, I am not questionning your decision making, you were there and you walked away just fine so you made a good decision, I am not taking saving the aircraft into consideration either, I am just wondering if I myself would be urged to pull the parachute if I had one and was faced with an emergency instead of trying to find an alternative that I could control. I know how helpless and stressed a pilot feels when faced with a real emergency
@@flyingmechanic1 I landed in a decommissioned airfield that is downtown in Edmonton, Ab. It was February with about 4 ft of snow covering the ground, and they have ripped up the runways so there are rock piles everywhere under the snow. If I would've tried to land the airplane would've instantly flipped on its back. I have not heard of a single aircraft that pulled the parachute when it absolutely wasn't necessary. If there would've been a safe place to land I would've landed the aircraft normally by gliding in. The engine was also hanging on by only my windshield so if it would've let go during a landing I would've died for sure.
@@DarrylZubot you sure know more than I do about what happened and what was the proper decision to make and I am not questionning that, I know that I replaced a propeller on an alpha trainer for a newer model prop after it happened to you tho :)
Extremely informative while keeping the data simple and accessible. Thank you!
These things are really gonna come into their own when e-VTOLs are gonna start seeing use for short distance mass transportation.
It's crazy to me that we're living in a time where this comment doesn't sound like it came from a crack-pot.
While not Vtol there's a commercial air line already looking into Electric aircraft for some of the short-hop routes between scottish islands.
@@Joesolo13 have you ever seen that black and white footage of Arthur C Clarke predicting the internet and the future back in the 60s? I've been an avid reader of science fiction my whole life, and wild things I could not imagine happening ended up becoming reality.
That's why I can't be too hard on crazy predictions. There usually are subtle differences though, usually dictated by economics. Back when people were predicting flying cars they usually failed to take into account the economics of it. If we have e-Vtols in the future, they would cost upward of 0.3M$. this cost is unlikely to go down much. Only the rich upper class would be able to own private ones. Most would be used for public transport on demand. In the near future the economic case only makes sense for e-Vtols with a minimum of three seats or more.
I thought this video was going to be bashing on the parachutes, but I was wrong. I like how you consider all the variables associated with using the CAPS successfully.
Should have mentioned the periodic service/replacement and the cost. Those along with the 80lb payload hit are big negative factors.
I’m not a pilot, I just come here for your wit, and dry humor. Hilarious and educational.
So basically, initially it was a dangerous plane, when people werent pulling the CAPs soon enough ... now they use the CAPs system, it is able to improve a dangerous plane to average? Would it not be better to start off with a safe plane and make it even safer with CAPs?
Robin Szemeti too logical
It's a slick airframe that lands fast because it's designed to be a long distance, traveling machine. Just like the Bonanza before it, it's never going to be as intrinsically safe as a 172 putting around the pattern and touching down at 45 knots. It's mission is different. The CAPS just provides another level of safety.
As I read comments down below I soon become aware of how good this clip sums the picture. I’m a flying member in an aero club and we have some quite different backgrounds but I’m happy to say we leave our titles outside the club fences. I’m not sure how much of the ego is left outside but I dare to say,, most of it. To be openmined, admitting your mistakes, learning or at least trying to learn what may come and “pick” you, without someone mocking you. Same time we need some ego to be confident with ourselves or we wouldn’t take to the skies at all. A proper done pop off (If it’s there ?) when you’re in the shit.. Yes please. Thank you Sir.
What percentage of Cirrus chute deployments could have been avoided had the pilot not done something stupid (eg, fly into IMC without adequate training, fly without sufficient fuel, takeoff over weight, fly into hazardous weather such as icing or turbulence, etc.)? A chute is a poor substitute for judgement.
You are right however since pilots are human poor judgement happens and it can happen in any type of aircraft, and when it does the CAPS will safe lives... my main problem with the cirrus is they installed a parachute instead of fixing a design flaw...
@@flyingmechanic1 which is incorrect. cirrus was designed day one around the parachute. it wasnt to cover up a design flaw
@@billyhogge8803 I was told different, I have never researched it myself, lots of cirrus haters around here and the few cirrus owners around here say they were told/ trained to never attempt a spin...
those factors need a system automatic evaluation by computer to stop it happening
@@flyingmechanic1 yea you were told incorrect. The certified recovery from spins is to pull the chute, and the cirrus is not approved for spins, so no you dont ever attempt spins.... But thats not the same as a chute made to cover up a design flaw. You can google the test pilots accounts of spinning it hundreds of times.. It can absolutely recover from spins and was designed around the parachute from day one. Alot of ignorance around cirrus passed on via cessna salesmen. Literally a video on here of a cessna salesman sitting in a Ttx talking about how dangerous the cirrus is lol.. Not sure what kind of sales pitch that is
As usual Paul delivers an aviation story or review with considerable data better than anyone on the planet ... best in the business
Any stats on CAPS like systems in other GA / Experimental aircraft?
Thanks for giving Rick Beach the credit he deserves. Rick saved a lot of lives.
There is no reason why in this day and age it's a death sentence when one of those planes come down killing everyone on board.
Personally I believe it's cheaper for them to pay the claims on dead people then lawsuits after from the survivors.
Saint Robert's wow
If you have one you never need it but if you do not have one and can read the writing on your prop, well that is when you NEED it! Just a thought as Sport Pilot is on my list as that is the only license that the FAA would allow me to pursue, due to an issues with my previous career (As a _________💨)!
So see you in the sky some day!
Thanks 🙏 for the information!
DD
Dessert dry sense of humor, Paul, but I like it
What kind of dessert tho? Cake? Ice cream? Pudding? ;)
I’ve got one on my plane. A CFI thought it might interfere with flying the plane into the crash. It’s a problem attitude common among men who’d rather be dead than seen riding a parachute.
Great video! Is it possible pilots will take greater risks knowing they have caps?
Very good question. I had the same thought.
Russ Hendrix Aka The Volvo effect. As they think they are safer they are worse drivers.
Russ Hendrix as a former race car driver, and high-performance driving instructor, who is now a student pilot, I can give a perspective from the motorsports world. Successful racers (at least, *long-term* successful racers) pay attention to risk management the same as successful pilots. Drivers want their cars to be as safe as possible, but there will always be risks, some cars are riskier than others and drivers drive according. Some people would say that driving *any* race car is an unnecessary risk.
Bringing this back to the airplane world, a pilot might choose to make a night flight in IMC in a SR20 where he wouldn’t make the flight in a non-CAPS aircraft because the CAPS can mitigate the risks of a range of emergencies (e.g. engine failure) . Is he “taking greater risks knowing he has CAPS” or is he using the available tool (CAPS) to mitigate the risk? Consider a flight where there might possibly be icing conditions. Is the pilot who chooses to make the flight because his airplane has FKS “taking greater risks because he has FKS”? In that circumstance I think most would say the pilot who chooses to fly a non-FIKI airplane and hope to avoid (or fly out of) any icing encountered as his “risk mitigation” is taking the bigger risk.
How old are you Andy?
Henrik Værø 47. And you?
We Russians has an old saying "JUST IN CASE"! Better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it when you need it!
Got a good 'LOL' with the "pilots flying their ego into a crater" reference!
Love this guy's style . Great vid Paul. From a fan in Qld Australia
When you start to question the lifesaving ability of the parachute it`s time to take a long good look in the mirror.
This is a super-high quality video. It is heavy on reason and data, with just the right touches of humor. Please keep up the great work! I think you may be saving lives.