[HN Gopher] Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida ___________________________________________________________________ Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida Author : MDWolinski Score : 131 points Date : 2022-09-11 13:04 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.flyingmag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.flyingmag.com) | ouid wrote: | "no life threatening injuries", but notably did not walk away | from the crash. There's a lot in between those two. | dmix wrote: | 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 | | But obviously 10x better than the alternative. | marcinzm wrote: | Two out of three people walked away. | zymhan wrote: | > One occupant was seriously injured, and two of the three | occupants received minor injuries. | | https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-... | londons_explore wrote: | 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... | dylan604 wrote: | so, not a good landing if the definition of a good landing is | any landing you can walk away from | throw0101c wrote: | _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 | | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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-02-2... | kgilpin wrote: | It may or may not be false but I don't see the relevance of | citing stats about the purchase of brand new airplanes. As | I'm sure you know, most airplanes sold are used, because | most people can't afford a brand new 4 place certificated | airplane. | api wrote: | Is scaling such a thing to a passenger aircraft feasible? | hef19898 wrote: | Short answer, no. Mostly due to weight, speed, flight altitudes | and different certification criteria. | LorenPechtel wrote: | The bigger the vehicle the more altitude that is needed to | deploy chutes. The bigger the vehicle the proportionately | heavier the chutes need to be because they need to spread out | more and they need to be stronger. | | Furthermore, most commercial aviation disasters occur at low | altitude and the ones that happen at high altitude tend to be | too catastrophic for chutes to be of value. (If something bad | happens at high altitude that doesn't destroy the plane it | tends to make it back.) Off the top of my head I can only think | of three crashes where they could have used chutes--two where | the hydraulics were damaged by high energy events (and would | the chutes have worked properly??) and one fuel failure due to | hijacking. | barefoot wrote: | I'd imagine it might be technically possible but not practical. | The weight required for ballistic parachute systems is | substantial. On small aircraft (such as Cirrus and Icon) it | reduces the useful load, and thus range/payload, substantially. | Range and payload are very important aspects of commercial | passenger aircraft. | | Further, commercial passenger aircraft are already very safe | due to system redundancy not practical on smaller aircraft. | Would a ballistic parachute system help with many accidents in | this category? I would be willing to bet not. Ballistic | parachute systems are not a magic bullet - they require | substantial altitude/time to deploy (as much as 900 feet in a | spin, for example). Many substantial aviation accidents happen | during takeoff and landing below or near these altitudes. | | Would you pay a multiple of your current airfare for an | extremely small (practical) reduction in travel risk? | teruakohatu wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Not true, I think. Even a partial deployment will help | provide drag and reduce aircraft velocity | Syonyk wrote: | 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. | ilamont wrote: | 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 wrote: | They're in a simulator, aren't they? | drakythe wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Demonstration in embedded video is a simulator, though. | LegitShady wrote: | The embedded video is in a simulator. The article contains | no pictures or video related to a real world deployment. | bragr wrote: | >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 | heyflyguy wrote: | 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 wrote: | Based on the preliminary report, it seems like bad weather? | | https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220909-... | LamboJ wrote: | 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 wrote: | Using any parachute in stormy/rainy conditions sounds | terrifying. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | 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. | mannykannot wrote: | Insurance companies have a great deal of experience in the | business of pricing risk. If they could model the risk of | insuring Cirrus aircraft as if they did not have parachutes, | then a first-cut model for them with parachutes seems well | within reach - just assume all in-flight incidents causing | damage will be total losses! | fibonacc wrote: | 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. | cjbprime wrote: | > Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest | field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to | land itself. | | This kind of feature exists, as Cirrus Safe Return Emergency | Autoland: | | https://cirrusaircraft.com/story/introducing-safe-return- | eme... | wyager wrote: | > Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer. | | I looked into the stats before I started flying and iirc this | is not the case for private aircraft on a per-hour basis. In | fact, private aircraft may have been riskier than motorcycle. | bombcar wrote: | The key is that something like 90% of pilot fatalities can | be traced to pilot fault. | | 60% of motorcyclists becoming organ donors are not the | motorcyclists fault. | kurupt213 wrote: | Both hobbies are equally unforgiving of mistakes | dehrmann wrote: | At least for commercial flights, takeoff and landing are the | dangerous parts, and that's where the chute is least | effective. I wonder if it's the same for general aviation. | fibonacc wrote: | I wonder for those situations where you experience | catastrophic failures at low altitude situations where you | can't deploy the chutes, whether some type of short burst | rockets situated around the plane could activate to | "cushion" the plane and orientate it to safety. | | Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large | military planes. | theflyingelvis wrote: | As a general aviation pilot it's my opinion that takeoff | and landing are indeed the most dangerous parts of a | flight. Takeoff being the most dangerous of the two. | | Altitude is your friend. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | A wise man once told me: there are three things: | Altitude, airspeed and brains. You need two of those | things! | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | What you're after is a piper cub. Incredible short field | takeoff and landing performance. You can land from an engine | failure in a tiny amount of space, quite safely. | | The comments so far seem to presume the parachute is the only | thing required to keep you safe. Statistically there's two | engine failures every 100,000 hours in single engine pistons. | That's incredibly low. Most pilots are lucky to make 1000 | hours in a lifetime. | | The thing that is actually going to kill most people is | flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the side of a | hill in bad weather, hitting wires, or mishandling on base | turn and stalling. | | The previous comments about the parachute being ineffective | for takeoff and landing are partially correct. The minimum | altitude for successful CAPS (parachute) deployment is 500ft | AGL, but it has been used much lower successfully (sorry | don't have the figures but I think 200-300ft). | | They market the CAPS like it's the only thing required to | make flying safe but in reality you are more likely to kill | yourself than the airplane killing you; and a parachute won't | stop that. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | I know of 7 engine failures with people I know and they all | walked away safely after landing in a field. It's rare it | ends up in a fatality, even without a parachute. Most are | in fact twin engines that suffer an engine failure and | mishandling results in Vmca (too slow for rudder to keep it | straight), and they depart controlled flight and crash. 2 | engines is not safer. | bilsbie wrote: | Which plane of this class do you think is safest today? | | Also I don't understand your point about the insurance. | mlyle wrote: | If you pull the parachute, it's very likely to be a hull | loss. | | There are a whole lot of scenarios where you might pull the | parachute but have a decent chance of getting down safely. | | So, the parachute optimizes for occupant survival, but not | survival of property. Insurers are in a conflicted scenario | here: lowering injury claims but increasing property losses. | HPsquared wrote: | I wonder if they could add an airbag or something to | cushion the landing and save the airframe. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | It's all about weight. These aircraft are optimising to | the last kilogram. If you add 10kg more, that may be 1 | less pax, or 15 minutes (34 NM) range. | kurupt213 wrote: | The force of the chute opening is what kills the airframe | kurupt213 wrote: | I thought the p-51 was the doctor killer | pigtailgirl wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75m6ZTODxS8 | | -- demo - cool -- | rkagerer wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | crooked-v wrote: | 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. | johntb86 wrote: | What sort of circumstances would they use this parachute? | Engine failure? In a spin? | heelix wrote: | Yes to both, with the assumption a unpowered landing is not a | better option. The straps are part of the air frame - so the | parachute more or less turns this into something disposable. | Spin recovery is tricky enough I don't believe they have a | procedure that does not involve the shoot. | | A photo from the prop version, post deployment. You can see | how the straps are embedded in. Neat system. | | https://i.imgur.com/L54qyE7.jpg | petesergeant wrote: | let's say your wing detaches... | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk | rkagerer wrote: | Was it determined why the wing detached? (This was a DIY | airplane kit right?) | ehnto wrote: | That was both a very bad day and a fantastic day to be | flying that particular plane. | _s wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 | hackitup7 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Lots of ATP certified folks end up in NTSB reports. At | some point, it boils down to smaller aircrafts being more | at the mercy of weather. | jandrese wrote: | This incident looks like it may be one of those cases. | The pilot was on the glide slope to the airport when he | runs into a microburst and decides to pull the lever | before getting pushed down into the lake. | bombcar wrote: | Not sure the mechanics of a microburst that would | prohibit the plane getting through but not push the plane | and parachute into the lake. | kayodelycaon wrote: | I've seen way too many episodes of Air Crash | Investigations. | | A microburst could easily take out a full-sized airline | at low altitude. That's why airports and planes have | equipment to detect air shear so they don't fly into it. | Small planes are far more affected by weather and don't | typical have radar or safety systems like flight envelope | protection. | marcinzm wrote: | >Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of | incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced | pilots? | | There's also less redundancy in the plane overall so if | something goes wrong it's more likely to lead to serious | issues. A large commercial plane has multiple pilots, | engines, power sources, control surface systems, | computers, sensors, etc. | bilsbie wrote: | Also they fly above the weather and have more | instruments. | ehnto wrote: | General Aviation/Private Aviation is as dangerous as | riding a motorcycle, per hour of participation. At least | the last time I checked the statistics. It might have | improved with navigation technology and flight planning | software becoming more affordable. | merely-unlikely wrote: | A lot of GA aircraft are also decades old and lacking | newer technology | mechanical_bear wrote: | The danger of riding a motorcycle is overstated, as those | stats take into account riders who didn't wear safety | gear and/or rode inebriated. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | Yeah but to be fair, aviation statistics would also be | 10% as bad if they excluded people who didn't fly into | bad weather, took off overweight, didn't have enough fuel | in the tanks, ran out of light or were too fatigued, or | couldn't say 'no' to tasking or an unserviceable | aircraft. | kylecordes wrote: | I am not a pilot, not even a little bit; | | But I was under the impression that pilot training has a | lot of attention on recovery from a stall or spin, and | unless at low altitude, those are generally recoverable (in | a small aircraft). Would love for someone with actual | knowledge to weigh in, thanks! | cmurf wrote: | Stall avoidance and recovery is mandatory training for | certification, arguably mandatory training for make/model | checkout even if there's no type rating required. | | Stall spin training is only required for flight | instructor certification. While anyone can do this | training, FARs require both instructor and student are | wearing a parachute, unless it's for CFI training. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | I'm not familiar with the US system but stall recovery | training is mandatory in Australia. Seems to be in FAA | syllabus too: | | https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/ | tra... | | Spin recovery different issue. | melony wrote: | Small plane PPL pilots are not always as | experienced/well-trained as full time commercial airline | pilots. | ehnto wrote: | It can take time and altitude to recover a spin, and low | altitude maneuvers are often where unintentional spins | occur. That said, I don't know what the minimum altitude | for a parachute deployment is. That'd be important. | atdrummond wrote: | I believe 2000 feet unless Cirrus has changed their | recommendations. | dhsysusbsjsi wrote: | It's 500ft in the flight manual | krisoft wrote: | There are no minumums per say. If you need it pull it. | The higher you pull it the better it can work. They say | the demonstrated parameters are: 400 feet in straight and | level flight and 920 feet in spin. | | https://flyasg.co.uk/wp- | content/uploads/2021/06/CAPS_Guide.p... | p_l wrote: | It's not unique to Cirrus, but Cirrus is probably most well | known for having made bigger and heavier planes with BRS | throwaway894345 wrote: | What is BRS? | krisoft wrote: | 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 | chinathrow wrote: | The manufacturer of those rescue systems. | | https://brsaerospace.com/ | lisper wrote: | > It's not unique to Cirrus | | Not any more, but Cirrus introduced this technology to | general aviation. | tristanb wrote: | 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 | hugh-avherald wrote: | It's no longer considered a last-resort measure. Cirrus | training now says to consider it as a first resort. | tialaramex wrote: | 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 wrote: | > 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 | imglorp wrote: | 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. | krisoft wrote: | You can find it dissapointing, but they found that | statistics supports this kind of emphasis in the parachute | training. | | Obviously it is not true that people use it as a first | resort. Landing with wheels on the runway is the first | resort. As supported by the fact that vastly more cirruses | land that way. | | Initially they trained it as a last resort. Something you | only do when you get mated in that chess game you mention. | What they found is that pilots were reluctant to pull the | lever. They know it totals the aircraft and it is hard to | see the point where all is lost with 100% certainty. Pilots | crashed planes where the chute could have saved them. | | So they changed the emphasis. They now tell the pilots in | their training that if they are ever in any doubt they | should pull the lever. The people on board will walk away | and the plane is the problem of the insurer. After this | change in the training they have seen that pilots were | pulling a lever a lot more and a lot more lives were saved. | | > Automation and chutes are fine but we keep seeing | incidents where lack of judgement, planning or basic stick | and rudder skills were contributory. | | Absolutely. There are a some general aviation pilots who | perhaps should not be flying. I don't know how the people | organising the parachute training at Cirrus could help with | that though. | k1w1 wrote: | The thought process for out-landing a glider and landing a | Cirrus in a field is very different. | | A typical glider might touch down at 40mph, a Cirrus SR22 | at 70mph. The glider might weigh 800lbs and the Cirrus | 3600lbs. The energy at touchdown (remember velocity is | squared!) is radically different. Also keep in mind that | the wheels are only about 15" in diameter. 70mph in a | typical farm field on 15" wheels is not going end well | unless the field is perfectly smooth and firm. Not to | mention the challenges of not hitting power lines, fences | and cows while going significantly faster on approach | (final speed is more like 100mph). | | The parachute is there to take a situation where survival | is a real gamble and turn it into a situation where | survival is probable (almost 100% so far). | ramesh31 wrote: | > 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. | _s wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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? | Syonyk wrote: | 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. | dweekly wrote: | 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- | 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. | LorenPechtel wrote: | 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 wrote: | I think this apply to any kind of emergency. Planes can | squawk a codes to signal emergency w/o radio and get the | controller attention. | | Mayday call is used on life threatening situations. | tialaramex wrote: | 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. | Animats wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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... | nopzor wrote: | also worth mentioning - the vision jet is afaik the only | single jet passenger jet that is fully certified. | stevehawk wrote: | 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. | atdrummond wrote: | Single engine is more likely what the poster meant than | single pilot, no? | throwaway894345 wrote: | For a layman, what does certification mean? Certified for | what? | captainoats wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | numpad0 wrote: | 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. | ManuelKiessling wrote: | > 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? | threatripper wrote: | > 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 wrote: | It needs to be manually activated. | nopzor wrote: | 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. | TylerE wrote: | Actually, the insurance company would rather you pull the chute | too... an airframe is a lot cheaper than multiple wrongful | death lawsuits. | CryptoBanker wrote: | Can you sue your own insurance company for wrongful death? | piperswe wrote: | No, but if you're carrying passengers their families can | sue your liability insurance provider | JCM9 wrote: | It's a cool plane but very much does not "fly almost as fast" | as traditional jets. It's super slow and sluggish in that | regard and causes headaches for ATC because it can't fly as | fast or climb as fast as other jets. Think everyone cruising | down a highway with nice spacing doing 65 MPH and then one | person is doing 45 MPH... that's what ATC has to work around. | CitizenKane wrote: | It's in a strange spot because practically every other single | engine jet aircraft is military, and I imagine it's tricky to | drop a bigger engine in the vision jet without sacrificing | cabin/cargo space. I liked the other comment comparing it to | a turboprop. I'd say it's performance is something like | turboprop+ but it's clearly not in the same category as other | small passenger jets. | 7952 wrote: | 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 wrote: | > 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 | | 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_ wrote: | > 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). | rafale wrote: | I am sure the plane can fly again on most cases, they just | don't want the liability and they want to put "pressure" on the | pilots to only deploy it when necessary. | | A Cirrus pilot that loses an engine at a safe altitude will not | think of deploying it because the plane will be gone. | nocoiner wrote: | I don't think that's the way insurance companies look at it - | as I recall, I think they actually waive the deductible in | the event of a chute deployment to encourage use of the | system. Paying for an airframe is a lot cheaper than the | inevitable wrongful death lawsuits. | JCM9 wrote: | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-11 23:00 UTC)