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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Additional context: there have been major airliner crashes resulting in hundreds of deaths as a result of planes put in holding patterns by ATC that ran out of fuel while waiting to land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052
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.
> 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.
There will be questions, but there is a very strong doctrine of "A pilot in an emergency can do whatever the fuck they think is best", to the point where they are explicitly trained to ignore ATC orders in an emergency, if they don't agree.
A pilot would have to do something extremely malicious before the FAA would even start to question the choice of emergency landing airport. They don't want pilots second guessing their decisions out of fair of reprisals.
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.
Yeah--the point is that a plane under robot control like that is going to be calling mayday and everyone on the frequency is going to make way for it if possible. You make way for a plane calling mayday like you make way for any vehicle running lights and sirens--but in the sky there's a lot more ability to make room and a lot more enforcement against anyone who doesn't obey.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boeing skipped the step "to be redone if there are configuration and design changes" for the 737MAX, and smoothed over the differences with software. FAA was supportive of that rule-bending, and other countries followed along.
Yes and no. They din't skip it, the FAA acceptrd and certified the new design based data Boeing provided. Boeing should have, in my opinion, completely recertified the MAX instead of treating it as just a new 737 variant.
> 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.
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
Interesting, never heard of that reputation being associated with more modern turboprops like TBMs.
Definitely have heard of it for older piston prop planes, especially from the early 2000s, which I always understood is partly a mix of factors re: the affordability of GA piston planes, how common it was to fly without IFR training etc...
I would imagine with turboprops like the TBMs, quite a few factors filter out their ownership by folks who aren't IFR trained, + the fact jets are as I understand generally inspected with much more rigor on more frequent basis?
Which the Cirrus is. Is there a reason they selected this design?
Vision Jet is a great airplane with a sound design. But they are akin to the general aviation equivalent of a Ferrari or Lamborghini. Lots of fun and perfectly safe if you know what you’re doing. Disastrous if not.
It really just comes down to training. An aircraft with this level of performance would have only been flown by someone with an ATP certificate 20 years ago. Now anyone with money and a PPL + type rating can get into situations they have no ability to correct.
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.
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
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!
In docile trainer aircraft the spin can be recovered from, but that's usually only allowed to be tested in the utility category which has more restrictive weight & balance limits. In famously efficient airframes, it can take several thousand feet. In this article, the famously hard to insure pilot killer the Lancair IV took 4,000 feet: https://www.kitplanes.com/taming-the-lancair-iv/
Part of the Part 23 (certified aircraft rules) process is demonstrating spin recovery. The Lancair is experimental so it's not Part 23. Cirrus said, "We put in a parachute instead of demonstrating spin recovery." To which the FAA said, "OK, that works for us."
Since the Cirrus prohibits spins (most certified aircraft do) and Cirrus never demonstrated it officially, I only have the word of random comments on the internet to go with. The assumed state is, "The SR22 has poor recovery characteristics from spins and the manufacturer states in the POH that CAPS is the only recovery method." Maybe it's not all that bad, but at pattern altitude (this has sadly been demonstrated) I'm sure it's fatal.
There's some folklore in that criticism. Cirrus listed CAPS as its spin recovery technique because it was the easiest + cheapest way to demonstrate that it meets FAR 23.221. EASA didn't accept that and required actual spin recovery, so a test pilot put an SR20 into a spin about 60 times without incident. It sounds like there is some technique to it, but nothing that couldn't be taught in transition training or that you wouldn't expect from such a slippery airframe:
> The Cirrus test pilot performing the spin program noted that while all spins entered were recoverable, they required a method of spin recovery that, while not unique in light general aviation airplanes, is different from that of a light trainer airplane in which a pilot is likely to receive spin training. Significant variability in spin recovery training techniques also exists – ranging from merely releasing the elevator control in some light trainers, to movement of the control to neutral, to brisk forward movement to neutral, to brisk foreward movement past neutral, etc.. In the case of the SR20, the proper spin recovery procedure is to briskly move the elevator control to the full down position. This is an unnatural control movement, when the nose of the aircraft may already appear to the pilot to be pointing down sharply. This is also a movement not typically advocated by spin training instructors due to associated discomfort.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Small planes are often flown under visual rules without a flight plan, meaning that pilots are free to basically dick around... with prohibitions against unauthorized entry into controlled airspace and flying too close to people and structures on the ground. And that's totally fine when done responsibly.
But the free-form nature of the vehicle operation provides more opportunity for screw-ups. Maybe someone was buzzing his house or not paying attention to flying while giving a sightseeing tour to his friends.
Compared to commercial flights, it's no wonder that GA has a far higher accident rate. Commercial flights fly extremely predictable and repetitive routes and procedures, which reduce the number of variables into the mission. I'd liken the comparison to that between personal cars and buses, except commercial air travel is even more regimented than bus travel.
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.
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.
