"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
05/12/2014 at 18:15 • Filed to: planelopnik
0
12|
"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
05/12/2014 at 18:15 • Filed to: planelopnik | 0
| 12 |
A Cirrus sales demo flight in Austrailia went horribly wrong on Saturday after the pilot had to deploy the parachute in a flight that witnesses claim was "tailspinning out of control." The aircraft landed in a neighborhood, missing power-lines, roads and most other obstacles before landing on a fence. All three men walked away uninjured.
For Sweden
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 18:19 |
|
Implying this wasn't intentional to show off the Cirrus' features.
HammerheadFistpunch
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 18:31 |
|
So torn on Airframe chute. On the one hand, they save lives. On the other hand...okay im not torn, these are a great thing; assuming your insured.
|
For Sweden
> HammerheadFistpunch
05/12/2014 at 18:34 |
|
It's great all around. Chutes make for much easier accident investigations.
ttyymmnn
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 18:37 |
|
"It then started to go into a spiral. I thought the pilot was going to eject but it all happened too quick. I started yelling out to my wife: 'There's a plane going to crash into the house.'
"I was shitting myself, then it veered off and crashed about 400 metres away."
Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 18:47 |
|
Over the weekend here is SD we had a small plane that had a landing gear malfunction. They landed safely after having circled Montgomery field for a couple of hours to burn off fuel.... I think that they would have preferred having had one of these as an alternative option.
|
Chris Clarke
> Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
05/12/2014 at 19:41 |
|
A gear malfunction is generally a minor incident as far as airplane accidents go. The parachute option will total the plane and has a higher risk landing off site with no emergency equipment that's available at an airport. It still would be a good option to have just in case.
|
Chris Clarke
> ttyymmnn
05/12/2014 at 19:48 |
|
I read that in an Australian accent. Another article I read claimed witnesses were running back and forth because they couldn't tell where the plane was going to land.
The checklist calls for engine shutdown after chute deployment, but there have been cases where pilots leave the engine running and maneuver the plane to a more acceptable landing location. Wonder if that was the case in this instance.
deadlypixels
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 20:59 |
|
Just recently saw the new cirrus in person last month. A very impressive plane, I had the chance to fly one several years ago and it was a delight. The parachute is certainly a nice feature to have, and really seems to have proved itself here.
|
Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 21:01 |
|
it was a tricycle configuration and it was the front wheel spar that wouldn't deploy...not so minor if you can't get it worked out just right.
VolksytheBug
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 22:47 |
|
Glad to hear they all got down safely, but man...that Cirrus, which looks like the brand new model by the way, is a total loss. Here's to hoping they were insured well!
doubleodirty
> deadlypixels
05/18/2014 at 01:17 |
|
Well unfortunately you should check the fine print, because after the chute is deployed the entire airframe is junk and the insurance company doesn't cover it, so being a pilot I will never ever fly one of these
|
deadlypixels
> doubleodirty
05/18/2014 at 21:09 |
|
Wait... insurance doesn't cover it?? I knew the airframe was toast, but if it is shown that it was a genuine failure of some variety (not just pulling it for the lolz) how can it not be covered?