© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/cirrus-airframe-parachute-system/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
In October of 2002, an airplane which otherwise might have plunged into the ground and killed its pilot was instead gently dropped in some mesquite trees in Lewisville, Texas. The pilot, which suffered no more than a sore neck, had a Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) to thank for his safe landing, and it was the first time in aviation history that such a parachute had been successfully used in an actual emergency. These 55 foot wide parachutes attach directly to the aircraft itself, and are used as a last resort in small aircraft. To date, they have been successfully used in three such emergencies.
The founder of Cirrus, Alan Klapmeier, was on a flying lesson in 1985 when another pilot, flying with the sun in his eyes, flew into Mr. Klapmeier’s plane at 1,600 feet. He and his instructor were able to land their badly damaged aircraft, but the other plane spun into the ground, killing its pilot. This event motivated Klapmeier to develop a last-ditch safety system for small aircraft which would otherwise be doomed. His company, Cirrus Aircraft, developed the CAPS system for its small planes; and they include other state-of-the-art safety features as well, such as a a full roll cage, and a realtime digital map that shows locations of other nearby aircraft and the details of the terrain.
The parachute is deployed with a red, T-shaped CAPS handle in the cockpit, which fires a solid-fuel rocket that deploys the parachute within a few seconds. The force of landing when using this parachute is comparable to a 10-foot drop, and is absorbed by specialized shock-absorbent components.
Ironically, this plethora of safety features may be responsible for a recent increase in accidents in Cirrus aircraft. In 2003, Cirrus had 33% more accidents than the aviation industry standard, however an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board found that nearly all these accidents were due to pilot error, not problems with the aircraft, and that the parachute system was not deployed in these incidents. It would appear that the sophisticated safety systems in these aircraft give some less-skilled pilots a false sense of security, and with it, overconfidence.
Still, it’s pretty damn cool that a small plane can be dropped gently onto the ground in an emergency. While it’s true that in general flying is safer than driving, that statistic goes out the window when fender-benders are involved.
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/cirrus-airframe-parachute-system/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Very cool, but I don’t get the last comment about the disproportionate statistics. When fender-benders are involved, does it become safer to fly in an airplane? That makes no sense….
The problem with this system is that when activated it essentially damages the plane to the point that it is a total loss. This has an unusual effect on the psychology of the pilot flying with it. At first, it makes you overconfident because you know you can always pull the chute. Then, you get into a mess and try to use your emergency training to bail yourself out of it before resorting to pulling the CAPS handle, but by the time you realize that you can’t (if at all), it’s too late to fire the chute to save yourself. Most real-world pilot emergencies are nothing like the mid-air collision described as the inspiration for creating CAPS. The #1 cause of crashes is what’s called “Continued VFR operation into IFR conditions,” which basically means flying into bad weather but not flying out of it. Right behind it is engine failures, most often caused by simply running out of gas. So if your shiny new $350,000 plane runs out of gas, are you going to destroy it by pulling the chute, or try to put it down safely somewhere, top ‘er off and continue on like nothing happened?
While I haven’t seen CAPS in person, I do however make regular trips for my employer to “Cirrus Design” at their Minnesota plant. Every time i go there i find myself in awe staring at the machines they produce… granted to many people it might not be that big a deal… but i love going there just to look at their products. FYI, the reason i make regular trips to the plant, is because my employer is the supplier of all their PC’s, including Cirrus’s drafting machines. Now those are spendy.
dave said: “The problem with this system is that when activated it essentially damages the plane to the point that it is a total loss. This has an unusual effect on the psychology of the pilot flying with it. At first, it makes you overconfident because you know you can always pull the chute. Then, you get into a mess and try to use your emergency training to bail yourself out of it before resorting to pulling the CAPS handle, but by the time you realize that you can’t (if at all), it’s too late to fire the chute to save yourself. Most real-world pilot emergencies are nothing like the mid-air collision described as the inspiration for creating CAPS. The #1 cause of crashes is what’s called “Continued VFR operation into IFR conditions,” which basically means flying into bad weather but not flying out of it. Right behind it is engine failures, most often caused by simply running out of gas. So if your shiny new $350,000 plane runs out of gas, are you going to destroy it by pulling the chute, or try to put it down safely somewhere, top ‘er off and continue on like nothing happened?”
Why does it destroy the plane? Are the machines that fragile, that the equivilent of a 10 ft. drop would break it beyond repair?! Wow, I of never thunk it. Humm DI!
Tink said: “Why does it destroy the plane? Are the machines that fragile, that the equivilent of a 10 ft. drop would break it beyond repair?! Wow, I of never thunk it. Humm DI!”
I suspect this would happen because the plane is not really designed to be held up by where the parachute is attached (though you’d think they’d attach it to the same part of the frame as the landing gear) or the act of deploying the parachute stops the plane’s forward motion a lot faster than was ever intended, twisting around the chassis.
dave said: “The problem with this system is that when activated it essentially damages the plane to the point that it is a total loss. “
Major damage? In the first practical use of the system the pilot, Lionel Morrison was flying to New Mexico from Texas. Shortly after takeoff as he was gaining altitude the left aileron snapped a hinge. Hanging by one side only it was forcing the aircraft into a roll/spin. He deployed the CAPS and landed safely. The aircraft landing gear suffered no damage since the wings took the brunt of the landing when craft ended up in some trees. The only damage to the aircraft from the CAPS system was the outer skin being “torn” when the straps holding the ‘chute deployed. The remaining damage was when after the wings took the brunt of the impact the aircraft nosed into the ground damaging the propeller. The pilot only suffered a sore neck when the nose hit the ground.
The aircraft required minor repairs before it was airworthy and was not a total loss.
The second deployment was in the Canadian Mountains by a Canadian pilot, most damage occurred when the aircraft hit the ground due to the substantially uneven terrain and a storm and not due to the ‘chute deployment. All five occupants walked away without any medical problems.
The third deployment was in Florida during adverse weather conditions and the aircraft suffered minor damage when it landed in some trees. Once again the CAPS system did more damage to the skin and not the superstructure. The pilot did not suffer any problems from the “landing”.
In most of the cases where the system was deployed the aircraft suffered more damage due to weather conditions and/or where it landed than due to any damage induced by the deployment of the CAPS system.
Radiatidon said: “The second deployment was in the Canadian Mountains by a Canadian pilot, most damage occurred when the aircraft hit the ground due to the substantially uneven terrain and a storm and not due to the ‘chute deployment. All five occupants walked away without any medical problems. “
The damage was mainly due to pilot error. When they departed Seattle the plane was overloaded and thus operating outside the safety envelope established by the manufacture. The plane was also flying over mountainous terrain so otherwise in a thinner atmosphere. The CAPS parachute is designed for a certain weight factor so the harder impact was not due to the failure of the design but due to the arrogance of the pilot by overloading his craft. The plane also landed at 2,300 ft on the side of a mountain and not on level ground.
”The third deployment was in Florida during adverse weather conditions and the aircraft suffered minor damage when it landed in some trees. Once again the CAPS system did more damage to the skin and not the superstructure. The pilot did not suffer any problems from the “landing”.
In most of the cases where the system was deployed the aircraft suffered more damage due to weather conditions and/or where it landed than due to any damage induced by the deployment of the CAPS system.”
A mechanic was returning this aircraft to the owner after a routine overhaul when the motor quit. It was overcast and the pilot could not see the ground so he deployed the system in the belief that a “gentle” descent by parachute is better than a quick stop by a building or other hard-to-move ground based object.
Figured I would offer more detail Radiatidon. Hope you don’t mind.
Enter your reply text here. OK
2 examples of how sharp pilots (pretty knowledgable comments above) are stupid as mobs of people.
1] Run out of gas which seems uncompetant. Not engine failure (that causes engine failure)
2] overloading a plane which seems incompetant. Not a storage failure (missguided labor worker causing a storage failure.
It’s the capains / pilots duty & their life.
Yes, aircraft are somewhat flimsy when you get right down to it. And if you happen to be in forward motion at, say 80 knots, the sudden jerk on the fuselage or the wings at a point and angle where stress wasn’t intended could do harm. If it doesn’t total the plane, I’m sure there is definitely some ‘splaining to do to the FAA folks. As well as a trip back to the factory for an inspection (Something that only usually happens at 10,000 hours or somesuch). I think a similar car comparison would be airbag deployment in a car. You know when that thing pops, you won’t be driving your car to the beach this weekend, or to work tomorrow.
My buddy is a chopper pilot who would fill in now and then for a traffic network in a big city out east. One time he took it upon himself to back the chopper on the trailer out of the hanger. His specialty was flying choppers, not driving those mini-mokes, backing a trailer no less. He dinged the tail rotor on the hangar door. Oh my God, Holy Mackerel! The sound of that ding might as well have been the sound of a cash register falling onto the sidewalk!
aircrafts of all types can be retrofitted and are BUT the real problem is you never get the time to pop it or they get crossed up or upside down in a storm.Like the shuttle if they had the time they could have used the ajection seat but they never got the time or warning.SOS if things go bad they all go bad at the same time.Yes it can save lifes but so can bailing with one on I`d rather have one on that I can steer screw the plane it`s a write off at this point but some dip will patch bits for the next crash.
The 33% increase in accidents at Cirrus is quite possibly due to risk compensation, as the article suggests. It’s just human nature to adjust your behavior to maintain the relationship between risk & reward you’re comfortable with, and when the conditions change, your behavior responds accordingly, so your level of danger is somewhat consistent. Of course, some safety improvements are invisible to the user (collapsible steering columns, e.g.) so the perception of danger is probably a more powerful motivator.