Cirrus BRS deployments - Alan Klapmeier's comments on NPR

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1840777

(link at top of page)

The beginning of the article is perhaps erroneous. It alludes to
inflight "emergencies." My knowledge of the facts in these two
incidents is inadequate to properly evaluate them. However, I have
read things that bring up probing questions.

The incident that occurred over mountains was the first. I live just
east of Pikes Peak (Rockies) and for almost 16 years they have been a
barrier. I had neither the training nor the proper aircraft to "Go
West young man." Last year I took a mountain flying course to handle
the training part (RV-6A takes care of the plane). One thing they
stress is do not fly over mountains at night and yet the Cirrus pilot
reportedly did.

The other noteworthy report about this incident (again if factually
reported) is that he encountered severe turbulence. Was turbulence
forecast or to be expected? I check winds aloft forecasts and cancel
mountain excursions if beyond my comfort level. Could he not execute
a 180 degree turn and get to calmer air?

The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
safely land mere minutes after take-off?

I know at least one person here is a fan of the CAPS. I wonder if it
is a last resort for pilot incompetence?

Ron Lee

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:45:36 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
safely land mere minutes after take-off?

The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:45:36 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
safely land mere minutes after take-off?

The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably
survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They
can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually
failed or not.

I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even
instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds.

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

The second incident (Florida I believe) was just after a take-off
where the ceiling was 400'. I would assume that the pilot was
instrument rated (not confirmed). If not then the conclusion is
obvious. If instrument rated, what conditions would have occurred
that were not available to the pilot to cause him to be unable to
safely land mere minutes after take-off?

The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

One advantage of CAPS is that at least the airplane's instruments probably
survived the landing in whatever state they were in when he took off. They
can be put on a bench and tested and we will see whether they all actually
failed or not.
I would guess not. Having 'everything' fail is extremely improbable. Even
instrument rated pilots sometimes become disoriented in the clouds.

What ever happened to "needle, ball, airspeed"?
Pilot's lose their gyros and claim instrument failure. If you practice
partial panel, you can get the airplane down safely.

ArtP wrote:

The pilot was instrument rated with 600 hours in a Cirrus. For the
parachute to work he had to be at least 900'. Since the ceiling was
only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

You are right. I would have significant problems with no instruments.
But then I am not instrument rated and I avoid IMC conditions. My
only experience with IMC was with an instructor in the right seat.
Even with instruments, my ears were telling me bad things compared to
the instruments.

But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?

Ron Lee

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:33:41 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?


Over the years COPA has had move than a few posts of pilots have
instrument failures. Sometimes multiple failures. The multiple
failures were all in VFR conditions so the pilots could report the
problem. One had multiple instrument failures combined with a
parachute failure but that pilot was able to land in a field after
broke out near the ground (Lexington, Ky.). Anytime a plane has a
large number of individual component failures eventually some will
happen together and sooner or later they will happen in the worst
possible conditions.

Ron,

But your statement suggests significant failure of the flight
instruments. Is that typical for that aircraft?


Jeeze! "His statement" is as much guesswork as is everybodys with
regard to these accident. That's what accident *investigations* are
for!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"ArtP" wrote in message
...

only 400', I suspect he was in the soup without instrumentation. Maybe
you could land under those conditions, but most of us could not.

We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD
Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely
that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was
in contact with the controller by radio.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:35:06 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:



We don't know all the details yet but remember both the original and PFD/MFD
Cirrus have some electric and some vacuum instrumentation. It seems likely
that he would not be able to at least fly a PAR or ASR approach since he was
in contact with the controller by radio.

Because of the high repetitive failure rate of the Cirrus vacuum
system, starting in sometime in 2002 all Cirrus planes were all
electric. As far as knowing what happened, we do have the pilot's
statement and without out proof to the contrary, I see no reason to
doubt it.