75
Conveniently unmentioned in the headline: not a terrorist act, not an intentional violent act. Just standard run-of-the-mill jeez-that's-terrible stuff.
Yes, however, terrorism shouldn't be the expected norm in headlines.
So long as we click
So... while way outside my ability to own... pretty much all Cirrus aircraft come with parachutes. Rather than being for the pilot/passengers, the entire aircraft is parachuted down "reasonably" safe. (way more reasonably than crashing into.
Just something that probably should be made mandatory on all light aircraft but won't be because.... reasons.
Cirrus aircraft are expensive even by the stratospheric standards of general aviation, which leads to a "no seatbelts, we die like real men" attitude from your average GA pilot with a 60-year-old Cessna that flies backwards in a stiff breeze.
That said, the RV-10 is a (relatively) inexpensive kit plane, and one that has a couple parachute systems available for it. In the case of a kit plane, I think it's not unreasonable to say that adding the parachute system is a good idea... the incident rate with such aircraft is much higher than with other general aviation aircraft, and the cost of adding the chute isn't eye-popping compared to the other costs involved.
Just curious, would a chute have worked below 900 feet? I wonder at what altitude they would have realized they couldn’t save it.
The Cirrus CAPS system works as low as 400 ft if the plane is still in level flight, but if it's not got forward motion -- say, in a spin or stall scenario -- it needs more altitude to fully inflate. I'd guess that in this case, if they'd had a BRS system it probably would have had time to work, if only just, but they'd have needed to deploy it pretty early on in their emergency.
Yeah? Cirrus are expensive.
But not because of the parachutes. I’m just aware of a few incidents where the parachutes worked. (And none they didn’t. Might be a marketing thing.)
because reasons
I think it's ungodly expensive to retrofit to planes, and crashes are rare relative to small plane hours flown. While I like the idea, this plane crash probably wouldn't have turned out differently, as it sounds like it was about ~900 feet off the ground when it stalled and crashed.
Sometimes your ticket is just punched and you are totally fucked, particularly if your engine seizes in a single engine plane.
They were turning around to try an emergency landing. Safe to assume they discovered the issue well above 900 feet. Also the cirrus parachutes worked at 400 AGL in level flight and 900 in a spin. (Iirc, this more or less true for the kit plane or far103 versions.)
It’s possible ( though I’m not gonna bother checking) that they could have instead gotten lined up in a field and had a gentle albeit embarrassing landing without ever getting that low.
As to if they would have tried that or not… well. That’s a different story and I don’t really want to game it out.
As for retrofitting- yep. It is ridiculously expensive to do that. But in new aircraft… not as much. (Let’s be honest, most kit builds are improvised or adapted anyhow, it’s not that much more onerous to add a requirement for new aircraft, and eventually, we’ll get there.
The ICON A5 "jetski that also wants to be a plane" also has one.
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
75 points (95.2% liked)
News
23738 readers
3190 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS