Parachutes

[thing]

As a glider pilot I always wear a 'chute, is there any reason light aircraft pilots don't? 'Chutes have saved many glider pilots lives and they are cheap. Do L/A pilots think they are cumbersome/unusable or what? It seems odd to me that they don't wear them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Powered aeroplane pilots don't as a rule all around in circles under the same bit of cumulus.

Structural failure, when you don't fly into another aircraft, is incredibly rare. Virtually any other emergency is best dealt with by gliding to a field - as you glider chappies obviously do at the end of most flights.

The theoretical risk of engine fire is virtually unheard of, after that most light aircraft accidents start somewhere under 500ft - where a parachute is of pretty much no use.


That said, most aerobatic pilots, do wear parachutes - because they're probably the only people at significant risk of either an unrecoverable spin at high altitude, or a structural failure at high altitude: those two being about the only good reasons to use a 'chute in a powered light aeroplane.

G

[SNS3Guppy]

those two being about the only good reasons to use a 'chute in a powered light aeroplane.

The main reason I wear one is because I plan to get out of the airplane at some point before it lands. Let's face it, freefall is fun.

Slowing somewhat before landing, after freefall, is a really good idea.

One generally doesn't need a parachute in an airplane because one is wearing something better: an airplane.

Many who wear parachutes, either for gliders, sailplanes, or aerobatics, have never actually used a parachute, and this is peculiar.

[eharding]

Most touring types would be very difficult or impossible to get out of in an in-flight emergency, and the seating arrangements would mean wearing either a seat- or back-pack would require some major surgery to the seats to make them fit.

That accounts for 80-90% of light power GA (probably). A small percantage of this category might have the option of strapping a parachute to the airframe.

The remainder - the ex-military or aerobatic kit - generally no real practical reason for not wearing a parachute, some folk choose not to - but that is invariably a reasoned conclusion arrived at after weighing all of the factors, rather than being in ignorance of the issues. Personally, I do wear a parachute if the option is available and practical.

[thing]

I was thinking more engine failure at night. I'd rather take my chances under a 'chute than trying to land in a 'black bit'. Are engine fires that rare? As a soon to be pubescent PPL I got the impression that engine fires/failures were pretty common. I certainly will be keeping a weather eye out for landable fields when I start my training.

[SNS3Guppy]

Why take your chances at all?

Wait until daylight, or fly where you know you can make that forced landing.

[ei-flyer]

SNS3Guppy,

Awww come on, you gotta admit, there be something somewhat exhilarating about flying in a small aeroplane at night, having a peek at your local area from above!

Unfortunately I can't afford the twin rates to do the same!

OR wait until a moonlit night, can easily be just as good as daylight if you pick the right night :ok:

[thing]

Well you may as well just stay in bed. It's all about risk reduction. I don't know what the failure rate of aero engines is, but you certainly read enough about them on forums like this. If you had never driven a car before and I told you that three and a half thousand people were killed each year in the UK in driving accidents then I wouldn't criticise you for asking about risk reducion.

[Ryan5252]

Unfortunately I can't afford the twin rates to do the same!

You do know that single engine aircraft are capable of flight too? (Also, I'm told, if you don't tell the aircraft any different it actually has no clue its flying at night!) :cool:

[Genghis the Engineer]

But a light aeroplane after an engine failure is just a fairly inefficient glider. You wouldn't worry about flying a K13 would you?, nor reasonably expect to use the parachute instead of making a field landing if you can't get back to base.

The night flying point however, is a very reasonable one - many people have expounded the view that you should wear a parachute at night in a single engined aeroplane. On the other hand, you actually can see well enough to pick a field in most cases, so I think most of the time, I'd rather do that than jump. But that's just my judgement, and I don't think it's that clearcut.

G

[ei-flyer]

Ryan5252,

I fly SEP night a lot during this time of the year!

Was just posting in response to SNS's comment regarding risk reduction. My interpretation on that was to mean single engine (although I may be wrong), and I would rather take a twin at night for safety's sake.

Hence that comment :cool:

[eharding]

Many who wear parachutes, either for gliders, sailplanes, or aerobatics, have never actually used a parachute, and this is peculiar.

I think we've done this one before, haven't we?

My rather light-hearted points about wearing a helmet or fireproof clothing should not require you to slam your head against the instrument panel as hard as you can before setting yourself on fire so as to become familiar with those particular items of safety equipment - so why do the same with an emergency parachute? - were met as I recall with your valid points that a parachute is an active piece of equipment that may require some training to make best use of - and I think we left it disagreeing over the risk/benefit ratio of deliberately turning yourself into a willing meat-bomb for the required number of jumps to have some benefit for the off-chance that you might have be an unwilling meat-bomb.

As it happens, after that exchange I did have a conversation with one of our local aerobatic fraternity who cheerfully threw himself out of aeroplanes for fun for years about whether I should take your advice and do some jump training. He said something about 'palletised-cargo triple-canopy heavy drop systems', and laughed a lot. I took that as a "No".

[thing]

I've never flown at night Ghengis unless it's in a pressurised tube watching TV and having a drink so I can't vouch for the visibility or lack of. I do take your point about gliding, I would be quite happy to plonk a L/A into a field with a failed donk, after all it's what I do every time I land, I will just have to take your assurance that the visibility isn't that bad when night flying.

[Pilot DAR]

I'd rather take my chances under a 'chute than trying to land in a 'black bit'

Hmmm, I would rather do it the other way. I fee far safer inside the plane, even when things are going wrong. As long as the aircraft can be flown, it can be landed, There's as much lift in black air, as illuminated air, you just can't see it as easily!

The structure of the plane is designed to protect you. Unless you're wearing body armour under the 'chute, you're better off to stay inside the plane. Though it may end up returning to earth in an unsuitable area, when you "land" the plane, there's a very good chance you'll have a working landing light, I doubt your parachute has one!

As has been mentioned, it's really hard to get out of most GA aircraft in flight. It's unlikely that when flying with good airmanship, you'll ever be in a situation where a 'chute would be the better choice (and I'm biting my tongue hard not to not get back into denegrating the ballistic 'chutes on some planes).

We GA pilots have generally been trained to fly, not to "fly or flee". I presume there as a military pilot training element which includes the decision making appropriate to decide fly or flee, at any given moment when things aren't going well. For us civil pilots, I think it's more a case of make the best of what you've got.

When I flew jumpers, I was required to wear a chute. This was only a requirement bacause once a pilot died, becaue he too was flung out of a plane when control was lost on jump run. I suppose there is also the concern of a jumper hitting the tail, and jeopardizing the control of the aircraft, but that was unheard of, when I asked.

Don't worry about wearing the 'chute when flying GA. It's kinda like wearing a helmet in similar flying circumstances, it makes people wonder what you're thinking.

I got the impression that engine fires/failures were pretty common

Nah, not really... I've had four, in 6100 hours of flying. Each time I landed without damage, and in a place, from which a later takeoff was possible. Yes, there's a lot of luck in that, but some careful flying too. Plan for engine failures, but don't worry about them, it spoils your flight.....

[SNS3Guppy]

Make an apples to apples comparison. You're talking apples to bananas or some other odd fit.

If you had never driven a car before and I told you that three and a half thousand people were killed each year in the UK in driving accidents then I wouldn't criticise you for asking about risk reducion.

No, but you're probably think me an idiot for asking for a parachute.

You see, the parachute has as much to do with driving a car for the first time as it has to do with night flight.

Do risk elimination. Not risk management. Not risk reduction. Seek to eliminate risk by either not turning a hazard into a risk (a risk is a hazard put in play), opening a back door to eliminate the risk (by allowing alternatives), or do something different entirely.

Well you may as well just stay in bed.

You may as well just stay in bed, than what?

Than go fly?

Than go fly at night?

Than go fly at night without a parachute?

Than go fly during the day to eliminate the risk of the night flight?

A parachute is flexible, non-rigid. A parachute breathes, swings, stalls, sways, twists, collapses, drifts.

Would you consider your first solo as your first flight, with your instructor simply bailing out of the airplane? Of course not. You'd prefer to have some instruction, be taught to a standard, and be capable of flying and landing the airplane, as well as handling inflight elemental emergencies (such as a powerplant failure), before you solo. Being tossed to the wolves, as it were, by being soloed in the middle of your first flight, would be idiotic.

How about making your first parachute jump without any instruction or previous parachute experience? You really think that leaving the safety of a fully controllable airplane is better than jumping into the dark?

Your parachute is a folded bit of fabric wrapped in a ball and tucked at the ends. It's deployed with a smaller parachute, spring-loaded, designed to pop out and catch the slipstream, pulling the main parachute off your butt or back. The small parachute is attached to the big paracute by a bridle, or long cord, and that cord can wrap around your body, the airplane, or other parts of the parachute harness or your clothing or equipment, rendering the parachute inoperative. I've experienced this.

If the parachute opens in the airplane and even a small bit of it gets to the slipstream, that small bit can very quickly become a big bit, and can peel the side of the airplane away like the key on a spam can. You're then strained through that little opening like strained peaches. It happens. One of the most dangerous things in an airplane with parachutes is a parachute outside the container. A closing loop or cone or pin develops a problem on your pack, your ripcord gets snagged, and you've just introduced an open parachute pack in the airplane; a very, very dangerous condition. It's especially dangerous for you if you have a parachute you can't cut away.

Parachutes aren't guaranteed. They're bundles of fabric that depend on a very precise opening sequence, else they can malfunction. That's why when doing sport jumps we carry two parachutes; a main and a reserve. In some cases we carry a tertiary, or third canopy.

The majority of pilots who carry parachutes have never jumped a parachute, been in freefall, done a static line jump, experienced a parachute malfunction or trained for one, and know nothing about tree landings, powerlines and parachutes, water landings, downwind landings, canopy control.

You wouldn't consider flying a new type of airplane without at least a checkout. You wouldn't switch from airplanes to helicopters or gyroplanes without thorough instruction...but most strap on a parachute without a second thought, with no significant training (often with no training). Go figure. This is "risk reduction?"

[thing]

All I can say Guppy is that many glider pilots lives in the UK have been saved by using a parachute, without training. They would have been dead had they not worn them, without training. I can think of no instances whatsoever where a glider pilot has jumped and he could have saved his aircraft by sticking with it, or he has jumped and been killed as a result of, and I've read every glider accident report for at least the last 20 years and many from before that. You can't argue that. Well you probably will.

[eharding]

.....and know nothing about tree landings, powerlines and parachutes, water landings, downwind landings, canopy control.


(Here we go again......:ok:)

As per the above, for the average potential user of an emergency parachute, should they have to eventually use the thing then a downwind water landing into trees and powerlines with a canopy problem is probably going to kill them. Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.

Every time you jump out of an aeroplane, you incur a risk. Risk minimisation is the name of the game. Only a dedicated sky diver would maintain that risk elimination can be achieved by throwing yourself out of a functioning aeroplane. Because - and I mean no disrepect - they're nutters

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I took up gliding in the UK after having done several hours in L-13's in NZ. I was handed a parachute shown how to put it on and was given 2 sentences of instruction. In NZ i never even saw a parachute, i believe in the UK its a CAA mandated 'thing'

Wearing a parachute didn't make me feel even 0.1% safer.

The real issue for me when you do decide to hit the silk, is getting out! Even in a tommie with two doors you still have the T Tail to whack you or tangle your chute, in a PA28.... with one door... you'd have to be mighty high to perform an exit.

I have to agree with the above posts, baring total structural break up, you are much safer staying in the A/C than not.

Never had an engine failure (yet) but i have had one develop a 'chesty cough', one tends to get 'highly focused' when this happens :-)

[thing]

I see your point about getting out, especially in something like a 28, but gliders are designed for getting out of, quick canopy jettison, release your harness and roll out. Would probably take a handful of seconds, especially with the adrenaline flowing.

[hum]

In my opinion this is the way ahead and in many ways negates the arguments for carrying a second engine in light aircraft

YouTube - Real Aircraft Loses Wing, Lands Safely (Under Canopy) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk)

[Pilot DAR]

but gliders are designed for getting out of

Hmmm, if I designed GA aircraft to get out of in flight, I'd have a great number of people asking me "why?". If I answered, "because, I think they might need to one day", I doubt the aircraft would get approved, until I made right the defect in the design! (I have not had occasion to work on aerobatic aircraft, which I acknowledge require this capability as a part of their design.

I have flown both gliders, and aerobatic aircraft, and only ever wore the 'chute while flying jumpers, because of regulation.

Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.



Huh?

Yes, people get killed in planes, but lots survive crashes....

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I just thought about the logisitics of getting out of a tommie.

Unlock the doors (central roof lock)
Unclip harness - (very quick)
Open the door - (This would be interesting above 70knts)
Try and get out the door - (difficult enough on the ground)
Jump

how long does it take a tommie to spin through 4000-5000ft? good luck hitting the silk there, anybody disagree?

[eharding]

Huh?

Yes, people get killed in planes, but lots survive crashes....

My point was that if you elect to abandon the airframe, you have already made a judgement that the implications of staying with it are worse than the implications of making your own way down. Personally, if most of the control surfaces are behaving as advertised, the number of lifting surfaces you have available is roughly equivalent to the number you had on the walk-round, nothing worth mentioning is on fire, and you can see something vaguely flat onto which to make a forced landing, then staying with the airframe is a much better proposition.

[thing]

DAR, it's mandatory to wear a 'chute in UK in a glider. I suppose I'm just used to wearing one and it feels a little weird not to do so. It's part of my flying, much like I suppose wearing a seatbelt/harness is to a power pilot. There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.


Turbulence?

[SNS3Guppy]

There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.

It might feel odd when your head goes through the windscreen or hits the panel, yes.

Apparently you've never heat significant turbulence, severe or worse. I have, and I can tell you that you'd better be wearing your seatbelt if you wish to maintain control, if you wish to avoid a trip to the hospital later, and if you wish to make it back on the ground. If you're injured in turbulence, you may not be able to return to land.

The seatbelt is part of the control system; you control the airplane, and the seatbelt keeps you in a fixed place in order to do that.

I've had turbulence bad enough that it broke headsets inside the airplane and stripped the guts out of my computer, in a padded bag, rolled us inverted, and shook us enough that the instrument panel was little more than a blur. I've had turbulence bad enough that a flight engineer was ejected from the flight deck. Perhaps you haven't seen a good reason to wear your seatbelt yet. Hopefully you won't. Wear it anyway, for those times that you might learn why.

The seatbelt is an integral safety component in the airplane. The airplane may or may not come with parachutes, or provisions for them. It does come with seatbelts, and in most cases, shoulder harnesses. Wear them.

Personally, if most of the control surfaces are behaving as advertised, the number of lifting surfaces you have available is roughly equivalent to the number you had on the walk-round, nothing worth mentioning is on fire, and you can see something vaguely flat onto which to make a forced landing, then staying with the airframe is a much better proposition.

BINGO!!

An excellent treatise on the subject was penned many years ago, entitled "Fly the Biggest Piece Back," by Steve Smith. I don't agree with all he had to say, but I do like his sentiment. The CAPS crowd in their Cirrus's would do well to heed the admonition.

how long does it take a tommie to spin through 4000-5000ft? good luck hitting the silk there, anybody disagree?

I don't know what a "tommie" is, but perhaps you mean a Tomahawk. Yes, I disagree.

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out. Whether you can or not is another matter entirely.

Whether you can get clear without being struck by the aircraft, deploying the parachute early, damaging the parachute, striking your head, or running into other complications, is also another matter.

In my opinion this is the way ahead and in many ways negates the arguments for carrying a second engine in light aircraft

A second engine is for performance, and carrying a parachute doesn't replace a second engine. Ever.

All I can say Guppy is that many glider pilots lives in the UK have been saved by using a parachute, without training. They would have been dead had they not worn them, without training. I can think of no instances whatsoever where a glider pilot has jumped and he could have saved his aircraft by sticking with it, or he has jumped and been killed as a result of, and I've read every glider accident report for at least the last 20 years and many from before that. You can't argue that. Well you probably will.

Gliding in the UK is a drop in the bucket compared to what goes on in other parts of the world. When glider pilots hit the silk, it's generally either the the result of a midair collision (too many beaks in the same spot of sky under a cloud, along a ridge, or chasing thermals), or a structural failure.

This is seldom the case in powered airplanes, in when it is, rarely will wearing a parachute do much to save the tattered remains of your battered body.

Only a dedicated sky diver would maintain that risk elimination can be achieved by throwing yourself out of a functioning aeroplane. Because - and I mean no disrepect - they're nutters

You're what's affectionately called a "whuffo" in the jump industry. That's because we grow tired of hearing the phrase "Wuffo you wanna goan jump outta a perfectly good airplane, wuffo?" Or something along those lines. In the military, you'd simply be called a "leg." That's someone who doesnt jump.

Risk elimination is done on many levels, and isn't a one-time thing. It's done in the preflight. It's done in the preparation. It's done in the dirt-dive. It's done in the pack job. It's done in the rig, the harness, the testing, the second rig, the automatic activation device, in the reserve ripcord stevens system, and many other safety devices ranging from audio altimeters to crossbracing in modern canopies, to the use or zero porosity and ripstop nylon to redundancy in design, and so forth.

Skydiving isn't about risk. It's about freedom. Risk really isn't part of the equation. Skydiving is life in microcosm. We enter this world knowing that we have a finite amount of time to live. During that time we have certain duties, certain functions to perform. We may not know early in life how long the remainder of our time on earth will be, but we do know what we have to do, or we learn, or we die trying.

When we begin a skydive, we have certain tasks that must be accomplished, certain things that must be done. We have a finite amount of time remaining. When we leave the airplane, we know that we have exactly the rest of our life to open that parachute. That may be a minute, it may be thirty seconds, it may be longer, it may be less. If you were to wake up a terminal patient, knowing you had a limited amount of life remaining, you might try to make those few remaining minutes, hours, or days to be the greatest of your life. You might try to make the most of that time, enjoy what you had left.

A skydive is a celebration of that time; it is about the freedom of swimming in a medium you can breathe, about the world's fastest non-mechanized sport, about relaxation, about peace. I've found few activites that leave me as calm, as centered, or as relaxed as a skydive.

I've spent time in an intensive care ward as a result of a bad parachute, high winds, rough terrain, and some cactus. I've had three malfunctions with attendant reserve rides. I've had some interesting experiences, and some downright spiritual moments. I've jumped into the dark, jumped into the mountains, dropped into the desert, over the ocean, into corn fields, and even into a county fair. Presently I own two sport parachute rigs. Those rigs don't represent danger, they don't represent hazard. They represent freedom, salvation, and a ticket to an aircraft unlike a balloon, unlike a gyrocopter, unlike a helicopter, and unlike an airplane. The chance to pilot a canopy is every bit as enjoyable and rewarding as to fly a J-3 cub around a traffic pattern. In the jump world, we call people who fly canopies "canopy pilots," which is an apt description, especially given some of the extremely high performance canopies in use today.

None the less, we don't undertake a jump frivolously. Very thorough gear checks are done. Parachutes are carefully packed, lines cleared. When packing a parachute, I check every bit of fabric that might be trapped between lines, and clear it. I check every bit of cable, housing, webbing, closing loop, container, reinforcing seam, control line, brakes, riser, and so on, carefully, methodically. The skydive itself is planned; we rehearse how we're going to exit the airplane in what order, and who will do what, when, where, and how. We cover emergencies, we review them, we check each other, we signal, we communicate.

We carry gear in the parachute rigs which automatically deploys a parachute under certain conditions. We have means to cut away one parachute, keep another. We have means to quickly release everything in the event of a water landing. Some parachutists carry cord or equipment for highly unusual circumstances, such as getting out of a tree. We carry hook knives to cut. We wear altimeters on our wrists, chests, and inside our helmets against our ears. We watch each other. We train, we jump, we enjoy, and we live.

Skydiving isn't about risk, but risk elimination is practiced. To the Whuffo, skydiving is risk. It is not. It is freedom.

For those who wear a parachute but never train with it, how do you know what the canopy is supposed to look like? Can you spot a malfunction? If you're using around canopy, which many pilot rigs are, do you know how to address line twists, or about an inversion or mae west? Do you understand a line-over or what it means, and can you steer the canopy? Do you know how to do a parachute landing fall when you come down, or are you content to break your legs or back, especially in wind? Are you truly aware of the consequences of being near powerlines, under canopy? How about a water landing? If your rig has releases such as capewells or shot-and-a-halves, do you you know how to use them? What if your canopy inflates on the ground and drags you? What do you do? How about a tree landing? That can prove fatal if you don't know what to do. What a shame to survive your bail-out, yet die in a tree or falling from a tree.

If you're going to carry a gun, learn how to shoot it, use it safely, secure it, clean it, maintain it, load it, unload it, carry it, safe it, and employ it. If you're going to drive a car, learn how to go, stop, turn, park. If you're going to do anything, carry anything, use anything, then most of the time, you should learn about it. This is especially true in the case of a parachute when you're thinking of stepping into the void with little more than a non-existent aircraft bundled on your back that you hope will materialize when you do *something.*

Advocating the carriage of a parachute without advocating receiving parachute instruction is a foolhardy endeavor, but it's very much in line with many of the other comments we see here...pilots released to get their private who haven't a clue what to do with the mixture or carburetor heat or who can't calculate performance using the manufacturer data because they've never been allowed to see the flight manual. Simply because such a state of ignorance is tolerated and normal in some sheltered circles doesn't make it right; don't project that level of ignorance into critical equipment such as a parachute by suggesting that one shouldn't be trained and experienced on the gear. One should.

Whether the gear is warranted or not in most general aviation powered airplane operations is another matter entirely.

Wearing a parachute doesn't replace a second engine. Nobody loses an engine in a twin and says "it's okay, I have a parachute." Manufacturers don't say "Let's just make it a single engine airplane, and issue everybody parachutes."

Wearing a parachute doesn't mean one should bail after an engine failure. One should fly the airplane back down. If you can't land off field then you should ground yourself and seek competent instruction. It's not a superhuman event; it's a basic bare-bones skill, and if you don't have it, then you have no business being a private pilot. After all, if the engine quits, you're expected to be able to do it.

If you have a choice between a day flight and a night flight in a single, especially a cross country which may take you away from possible landing sites, then take the day flight. Just like flying IMC or over a layer, it's not just about the engine quitting; it's about lack of redundancy, single electrical sources, single vacuum pneumatic sources, instrument issues, etc. Flying a single isn't a do-all event. It's limited, and should be so, if you have any common sense. Generally those who cry the loudest about that are those with the least experience; you'll find that most experienced aviators are far less welcoming to single engine night cross country, single engine over water flights, or single engine IMC...that's usually the bailywick of the less-informed.

If you think that level of ignorance can be compensated by the wearing of a parachute, you're only compounding the original ignorance and making it worse, but you're welcome to that dangerous view. It's all yours.

You certainly won't find it much down the road when you gain some experience, or seek among those who do have some experience.

As per the above, for the average potential user of an emergency parachute, should they have to eventually use the thing then a downwind water landing into trees and powerlines with a canopy problem is probably going to kill them. Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.

Ah well. There you go. The argument to maintain ignorance and bury one's head in the sand is that one was likely to die anyway, so one certainly shouldn't engage in any training that might save one's life.

With that logic, next time the barn burns down, we should dehorn all the cows. It makes no sense, but at least we're doing something. Unlike advocating ignorance of one's emergency pilot parachute rig.

Wouldn't it be much better to learn water landings, tree landings, a parachute landing fall, and experience several canopy rides and receive actual competent training, instead? Is that too complicated?

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I'll take my little bit out of your substantial response


I don't know what a "tommie" is, but perhaps you mean a Tomahawk. Yes, I disagree.

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out. Whether you can or not is another matter entirely.



Yes Piper Tomahawk PA38, my point was after orientating oneself and extracting your self from the aircraft which would be very difficult in a 'car door' type aeroplane there would be precious little time left to deploy a chute (if the tail doesn't whack you first), in saying that i know a glider pilot who reckons he pulled his chute at 500 ft AGL and escaped with a nasty sprain

of course the only reason you'd probably want to do is if the aircraft became aerodynamically unfly-able in that case it would probably not be stable and throwing you about abit.
All bravado aside i seriously wonder how many of us would actually be able to extract ourselves in this case?

Not a converstaion you want to have with non flyers in ear shot.

[SNS3Guppy]

I suspect it's much like the answer we typically give to a jump student who asks "in an emergency, how long do I have to deploy my reserve?"

Why son, you have the rest of your life.

How long do you have to get out of the traumahawk? The rest of your life.

Not all airplanes are easily exited, of course, and certainly not all are well advised.

Even in aircraft equippped with rapid egress doors, such as those held on by pins, carrying a parachute may not be the order of the day.

All ag airplanes come with jettisonable canopy doors; pull the handle, the pins in the hinges pull clean,and the door is knocked away. I don't know anyone who flies ag that wears a parachute, however, or anyone that would, in their right mind suggest it to be a good idea.

Even where we fly ag airplanes at higher altitudes, none of us wear parachutes. Most have enough common sense to know that we can fly the airplane (or what's left of it) back down.

Where aerobatics are performed, assuming they are performed high enough, one has a reasonable chance of getting clear and deploying one's canopy. Low level aerobatics, not so much.

So far as wearing or use of parachutes in light airplanes such as the venerable Cessna 172; not really a good idea. Then again, when was the last time we saw or heard of a wing come off a 172 in flight?

[Pilot DAR]

Thing, Not wanting to appear to challenge you perosonally, but rather the system on the whole [in the UK, I suppose]

it's mandatory to wear a 'chute in UK in a glider. I suppose I'm just used to wearing one and it feels a little weird not to do so.

Mandatory to wear a parachute, but not a helemt? Is not a helmet appropriate safety gear for a person who expects to need to use a parachute?

I suppose that I do agree that there is an increased risk of mid air collisions during thermalling. I've only done a bit of it, but I do see the logic. I would imagine if you're thinking there's a risk that you're gonna bump two gliders together, you'd want to be wearing a helmet when it happened.

I wear a helmet whenever I fly helicopters (though a parachute seems obviously rediculous - helicopters never seem to be flown far enough from earth, that you would ever have time to use it, let alone it being chopped up on your way out!). My personal reason is that helicopters crash in directions other than forward too often. Planes generally crash mostly forward, and I'm a keen wearer of shoulder harnesses. I have not thought the need to wear a helmet for fixed wing flying yet, but if I thought I might be getting out in flight, I'd be thinking about that carefully. (I did not think that far through it when flying jumpers - flying a C 185 was just too "normal" to me). That was a long time ago, I wonder what the norm is now....

What about life jackets? Do you actually wear them when flying over water, including float flying? I do, and have the necessaries clipped to me, so they go out with me automatically.

What about low flammability clothing? Are pilots generally conscience of the risk of fire, and the need to not have burning clothing sticking to them (glider pilots excepted)? I do, cotton or wool only (or Nomex, of course).

Sometimes we just wear the gear, 'cause someone says to (or we have it, and it looks cool). Do we really think it through?

Oh, and although I do generally agree with:

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out.

During my recent spin testing of a Cessna Caravan, I attained descent rates as high as 9200 feet per minute! (but not for long).

[cats_five]

I know a number of people who fly gliders without parachutes because they are so tall they don't fit in when wearing one. Some of us only fit wearing one.

But it's not mandatory except for cloud flying - see the BGA Laws & Rules paragraph 6.14.

It is however recomended practise to wear one - see Laws & Rules RP16 & RP17.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/lawsandrules.pdf

[astir 8]

In general glider seats are designed to accommodate a parachute. So you either wear one or use a (firm) cushion in its place. I expect the gent who had to vacate his glider after the mid-air with the Tutor near Didcot the other year was quite pleased that he wasn't leaning on a cushion. Ditto the two guys some years back whose glider was disintegrated by a lightning strike.

Re parachute training, I believe that it's a question of risk balance. e.g. I believe the RAF stopped doing single engined landing training in Mosquitos because more pilots were dying in training than in the real thing.

And I've seen three people die in freefall accidents (ok out of a lot of successful jumps and two of them were grandstanding low down)

Personally I have decided that the chances of my having to bale out of an uncontrollable glider are sufficiently low, combined with a reasonable chance of not meeting power lines etc on arrival on terra firma that I won't be practicing parachuting (plus the British Sport Parachute Association would say that I'm too old to start anyway!)

But each to his own, always. I'll keep strapping on one of those fancy backrests with a handle with the firm hope that I never see its contents.:ok:

[moona]

how long do I have to deploy my reserve?"

Why son, you have the rest of your life.

Brilliant! :ok:

[LH2]

Quick question here: are glider chutes the spring loaded type, like reserves are? I've done a few hours gliding but never paid much attention to the chute (my vague recollection is that they were the spring loaded drogue type).

[Biggles78]

thing, when you start taking passengers, are they going to get a parachute as well?

I know of 2 jump pilots having to deploy their ripstop material (both were flying Cessnas). The first on was Tapuo, NZ and he was so excited that he did the full jump course and on his official jump broke both ankles. :eek: A far cry from his emergency egress. :ok:

The second was at Pakenham, Vic, OZ. Jumpers hanging on outside and one had his throwaway come out of the leg pocket. Did fatal damage to tailplane and the pilot managed to get out and initiated opening at approximately 400'. Jump run was at 4,500' (low cloud base). He was given a First Jump Certificate by the skydiving club and immediately grounded for opening too low. :ooh: Hope they both applied to the Caterpillar Club for membership.

I flew a PA32 and before the above incident I had estimated it would take me 5,500' to get out and deploy. I was pretty much on the money as it turned out (getting out of the seat had a complication). When it came time for the pilot's rig to have it's repack, I pulled the handle so I would know what to expect (in addition to the broken legs from a 22' round).

S3, I learnt as much as I could about skydiving without actually jumping. I also learned to pack the mains and in my several hundred repacks never had a failure or a line over. We did have one FRAP when the jumper had a line over and cutaway to late. She unfortunately impacted at "line stretch". If she had ridden it down it was estimated by experienced jumpers (1,000+ jumps) a broken leg at worst or a stand-up at best (depending on the part of the rotation at ground level). Given that, I do not consider myself a whuffo; rather an enthusiest. They loved jumping, I loved flying. Funny thing was that I was unable to get life insurance as a pilot because the company considered that it was too dangerous but if I was a skydiver then that insurance was available. Go figger. :ugh:

thing, with the above info about altitude and bail outs, how would you manage this with 3 passengers and a single over the wing door? The thought of flying jump ops without a rig made me uncomfortable but I had not such feelings flying the same aeroplane with the back doors on. If you feel you need the reassurance of a parachute strapped on when flying then maybe flying is not for you. It will certainally not inspire confidence in your passengers if you walk out to the plane with a funny looking backpack that they don't have. Just jump in the plane and enjoy the thrill of flying and the challenge of improving your skill level with each flight. More pilots (and skydivers) are killed driving to and from the airport or DZ than flying or jumping.

[SNS3Guppy]

During my recent spin testing of a Cessna Caravan, I attained descent rates as high as 9200 feet per minute! (but not for long).

I've had some high rates of descent in a Caravan while dropping jumpers, but it's after the drop and not in a spin. That occurred on a downwind to the runway at 18,000'. By unloading the wings and configuring for landing, letting the nose fall through to the vertical, and then respecting the door speed on the way down, a traffic pattern from 18,000' was very doable.

During the initial spin entry or at the incipient spin stage the descent rate is generally high. In a steady-state spin, especially as the spin flattens or passes through flat rotations, the descent rate isn't very high. The first rotation for many airplanes can eat up several hundred feet to a thousand feet, but after that the descent rate isn't usually very high at all.

The problem in a spin is exiting; the airplane is both yawing and rolling in a coupled motion, and typically is oscillating in pitch, or varying in pitch, as well. Getting out during that action may prove difficult, especially if complex exit requirements exist. Standing during the spin, or turning, working a door, squeezing out the door, etc, may be a problem.

Quick question here: are glider chutes the spring loaded type, like reserves are? I've done a few hours gliding but never paid much attention to the chute (my vague recollection is that they were the spring loaded drogue type).

It's called a spring-assisted pilot chute, and the answer is yes. The spring assist is necessary for two reasons. One is to get the pilot chute out of the pack container as quickly as possible and get it working as early as possible (because nothing is going to happen until the pilot chute is inflated and removes the parachute canopy from it's container for inflation). The other reason it's spring loaded it to get it away from the user. Particularly in stable freefall, a "dead air" space exists near the jumper. A non-assisted pilot chute can lay in that burble and never inflate. The same can be true of a spring assisted pilot chute on occasion; if nothing happens after pulling the ripcord, one may want to check over one's shoulder, spill some air behind one's back, and see if that doesn't pull the pilot chute clear. I've seen them pop and then lay on my back before, without extending the bridle or removing the pack off the container.

The spring-assisted pilot chute still stands the greatest chance of getting clear of you and getting good air, and getting open. Spring assisted pilot chutes are also used on most all sport and military reserve parachutes. They can work fast enough that following a cut-away of the main parachute the reserve can be open nearly right away.

S3, I learnt as much as I could about skydiving without actually jumping.

Most DZ's where I've been won't allow someone to pack who doesn't jump. I worked part time at a drop zone years ago, packing at night and turning wrenches on the aircraft. I hadn't jumped in several years. One afternoon during a busy pack session with a lot of tandems and students, one of the riggers stood up and pointed his finger at me. "We don't trust people packing who don't jump." He said.

As I stood, he tossed a rig at me, nearly knocking me over. He told me to put it on and go get on the next load, which was just starting up. I did. He met me at the landing site, which was away from the airport. He drove me back to the airport, gave me another rig, and said "go do it again." After that, nobody said another word.

It's unusual for someone to pack who doesn't jump. I've never actually encountered it, in fact. Interesting.

Given that, I do not consider myself a whuffo; rather an enthusiest.

Whuffo's aren't people who don't jump; they're people who don't understand jumping. You're not a whuffo.

[cats_five]

thing, when you start taking passengers, are they going to get a parachute as well?

As per the BGA, the only reason for not wearing a parachute is because one doesn't fit with one on - that means one is very tall. So yes, any one taking a trial lesson will wear a parachute if at all possible and will receive brief instruction in it's use. There isn't much to say as they are circular reserve-style chutes designed and packed to open very quickly, and they can't be steered like a square one can.

That policy has saved at least one life - both occupants of the K21 that was hit by lightning near Dunstable survived with relatively minor injuries.

[thing]

Who would have thought parachutes would cause so much fuss? :rolleyes: The original post was just an idle daydreaming type question, not meant to provoke Defcon 1.

[SNS3Guppy]

So yes, any one taking a trial lesson will wear a parachute if at all possible and will receive brief instruction in it's use.

In a glider, perhaps.

There isn't much to say as they are circular reserve-style chutes designed and packed to open very quickly, and they can't be steered like a square one can.

Ram-air canopies open very quickly, too, which is irrelevant. Round canopies can be steered, and this should be part of the instruction, as should how to address certain malfunctions, how to land, how to collapse one's parachute on the ground (especially for those that can't be cut away), etc. Line twists are common in ram air and round canopies. Pendulous motion (swinging) in round canopies is common.

That policy has saved at least one life - both occupants of the K21 that was hit by lightning near Dunstable survived with relatively minor injuries.

If you're referring to a Schleicher ASK-21, the obvious question would be why the aircraft was being operated near thunderstorms in the first place. Convective activity and lift, yes. Thunderstorms, no. Bad idea. Welcome to the Darwin Club.

[Pilot DAR]

not meant to provoke Defcon 1

Most threads in this forum, which make it past about 5 posts, eventually get to Defcon 1. Occasionally, even the most benign can get nuked by a moderator.

[cats_five]

If you're referring to a Schleicher ASK-21, the obvious question would be why the aircraft was being operated near thunderstorms in the first place. Convective activity and lift, yes. Thunderstorms, no. Bad idea. Welcome to the Darwin Club.

A worthwhile question, and one I'm sure was asked at the time and which is hinted at in the AAIB report, which also comments that this very strong bolt occured not that far from LHR.

The strike was estimated to be some 8-9 times stronger than lightning certified aricraft have to tolerate and I believe have or will affect the certification requirements.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

Thankfully the two occupants survived, because they were wearing parachutes, and because despite all the things that can go wrong the parachutes worked and AFAIK that is generally the case when people manage to bail out of gliders.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

THING i'm new here and i have been slapped with the rule book on a few occasions!

Most of the guys know from where they speak! i normally feel like a chided school boy by the end of the thread!

I think if you asked any fixed wing prop driver about parachutes your bound to get the above responses. Most of us know the likely hood of getting out of your average spam can is unlikely (even for the more motivated of us) especially at the altitudes most of us fly at (sub 4000ft). If the engine stops we are more than likely to join the gliding brotherhood at this point rather than the Caterpillar club!

[Plasmech]

Regarding the theoretical engine fire risk, I saw a movie about WWI biplane pilots a couple years ago (I think it was called "Flyboys" that) covered the cockpit fire topic. What all of those pilots would (very wisely I may add) do is carry a sidearm with them. This sounds barbaric, but they cleverly explained that the parachute had not been invented yet. So, if you caught fire, as would often happen back then, you would burn to death, which was apparently an excruciating way to go. Instead of burning to death, most pilots would draw their pistol and euthanize themselves before the pain got too intense. This happened to one of the pilots in the movie. It was somewhat sad to see, but it worked perfectly. The thing that was stresed is that the pilot's life ended when the fire started, not when he pulled the trigger, so he and his family would not be disgraced from stories of a suicide.

In modern times, carring a gun in the cockpit for this purpose is, in almost all cases, simply not necessary. While you could, in theory, still burn to death, the chances of a cockpit fire are a LOT smaller today, and we now have checklists for it...pulling avionics fuses, using an extinguisher, diving to choke-out the fire, ect. A lot of pilots in the US carry guns for personal protection but in all my life I have never heard of a euthanization prompted by a cockpit fire. I'm sure it happens, but is extremely rare.

[BackPacker]

and we now have checklists for it...pulling avionics fuses, using an extinguisher, diving to choke-out the fire,

Actually they're memory items. And if it's an engine fire a fire extinguisher in the cockpit will not do you much good. Nor will any of the other items you mentioned. Except, maybe, diving to choke-out the fire. But I wouldn't know how effective that is, considering the relatively low Vne of a typical GA aircraft compared to, say, a WWII Spitfire or Mustang. Anybody knows how fast an Avgas/Air mixture flame front spreads?

Here's what you should do without hesitation:
Close throttle
Close mixture
Close fuel cutoff

Oh, and there's a neat invention called a firewall. It's designed to stop an engine fire from spreading into the cockpit. Works fine as long as you remember to seal it properly - some aircraft may have vent holes or other holes through them, which may require separate actions to close. Cabin heat for instance should be selected "off".

[Plasmech]

I guess I was talking about a general cockpit fire as opposed to an engine fire. Possibly caused by a short on the instrument panel.

[Pilot DAR]

Hmmm, thread drift, but here we go...

In perfect theory, fire requires three things in adequate proportion: Fuel, heat, and oxygen. Take any one away, and the fire is supposed to extunguish (or at least become much less intense). Hence, the design requirement that the pilot be able to turn things off.

Firewall cutoff selected, the fuel is no longer supplied to an engine fire. Aside from the gasoline, which you have now turned off, there's not supposed to ba any other exposed fuel up there. Master off, the heat is no longer supplied to an electrical fire.

I know that this is the ideal world of aircraft existance, and nasty fires still do happen, but it's a risk so low on my list of things to worry about, that I take no other precautions than simply being aware of how the aircraft systems are to be used in such an event.

[eharding]

In modern times, carring a gun in the cockpit for this purpose is, in almost all cases, simply not necessary.

I always have a small bet with myself when Pprune parachute threads emerge as to how long it takes before the Gupster manages to introduce the topic of guns (he didn't disappoint this time round) but I'm still struggling with your assertion of in almost all cases.

Granted, in the UK should you have to bale out over Essex, some form of personal protection weapon would be ideal, but in light of current UK legislation regarding firearms the only feasible option is to fashion a makeshift shell-suit from the canopy fabric and hope to escape the immediate area and evade capture by the locals.

[SNS3Guppy]

In perfect theory, fire requires three things in adequate proportion: Fuel, heat, and oxygen. Take any one away, and the fire is supposed to extunguish (or at least become much less intense).

The "fire triangle" was replaced a number of years ago by the "fire tetrahedron." That is, the triangle is fuel, heat, and oxygen. The tetrahedron is fuel, heat, oxygen, and the chemical reaction of pyrolosis (fire). Interrupt any one of those four and the fire may be terminated. Halon interrupts the chemical reaction.

Firewall cutoff selected, the fuel is no longer supplied to an engine fire. Aside from the gasoline, which you have now turned off, there's not supposed to ba any other exposed fuel up there. Master off, the heat is no longer supplied to an electrical fire.

With fuel shut off, the engine still has oil. An oil fire is very difficult to control, even with an onboard fire system.

Electrical components burn, and are ignition sources. So long as the engine windmills, generally the generator still turns. If a fire has occurred, one may nor may not be able to interrupt the field, and one may or may not be able to ground a magneto through the cockpit controls. One may still have an ongoing source of electricity out there, and therefore, ignition.

For aircraft using hydraulic sources (such as the Twin Commander discussed in a recent thread, this presents another fire hazard at the engine.

Turbochargers present special hazards, and gas path leaks can cut through nearby components, leading to a fire, just as oil supplied to the turbo bearings can cause a fire.

Anybody knows how fast an Avgas/Air mixture flame front spreads?

In flight, that really depends on the fire and it's source and the location, as well as the amount of oxygen being put to the fire. An airborne fire can move very rapidly.

Oh, and there's a neat invention called a firewall. It's designed to stop an engine fire from spreading into the cockpit. Works fine as long as you remember to seal it properly - some aircraft may have vent holes or other holes through them, which may require separate actions to close.

Firewalls are required to be fire resistant, but it's a mistake to think it will stop a fire from reaching the cockpit. Works fine for a small, quickly extinguished fire, perhaps. Beyond that, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Of course, if the fire is somewhere other than ahead of the firewall, the firewall is irrelevant.

A lot of pilots in the US carry guns for personal protection but in all my life I have never heard of a euthanization prompted by a cockpit fire. I'm sure it happens, but is extremely rare.

Say again?

Very few pilots in the US carry firearms while flying. A select few pilots operating in the airline environment carry firearms as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, but that's very controlled, and there aren't a lot of participants.

Pilots shooting themselves to escape a fire? You've been watching too many movies.

Regarding the theoretical engine fire risk, I saw a movie about WWI biplane pilots a couple years ago (I think it was called "Flyboys" that) covered the cockpit fire topic. What all of those pilots would (very wisely I may add) do is carry a sidearm with them. This sounds barbaric, but they cleverly explained that the parachute had not been invented yet. So, if you caught fire, as would often happen back then, you would burn to death, which was apparently an excruciating way to go. Instead of burning to death, most pilots would draw their pistol and euthanize themselves before the pain got too intense. This happened to one of the pilots in the movie. It was somewhat sad to see, but it worked perfectly. The thing that was stresed is that the pilot's life ended when the fire started, not when he pulled the trigger, so he and his family would not be disgraced from stories of a suicide.

As you noted, that was fiction; a movie. The point of that element of the movie wasn't that parachutes hadn't been invented. They had. It wasn't that they weren't available. They were. The airplanes burned quickly because they were fabric and the dope was very flammable. So was the gasoline. As far as handguns go, there are recorded incidents of pilots shooting at one another with handguns in flight, and there's even a case of a T33 pilot who shot holes in his tip tank to balance a fuel load. The notions in the movie were melodrama and hollywood. Best not to confuse them with the realities of flying an airplane.

While you could, in theory, still burn to death, the chances of a cockpit fire are a LOT smaller today, and we now have checklists for it...pulling avionics fuses, using an extinguisher, diving to choke-out the fire, ect.


There are very few potential opportunities to fight a cockpit fire by diving an airplane.

When it comes to fire procedures, one needs to know one's airplane well and follow the procedures set out for that airplane with a keen eye to systems knowledge and understanding. What works in one airplane may prove fatal in another. Don't plan on blanket fixes, and don't mix procedures from one aircraft to another.

I always have a small bet with myself when PPRuNe parachute threads emerge as to how long it takes before the Gupster manages to introduce the topic of guns (he didn't disappoint this time round) but I'm still struggling with your assertion of in almost all cases.

It's hard to lose when you bet against yourself.

[Pilot DAR]

he "fire triangle" was replaced a number of years ago by the "fire tetrahedron."

Well, no, physics did not suddenly change a few years ago, the "fire tetrahedron" was always there. (we had firefighter refresher training on precisely this subject last month). I did not say only three things were needed to support a fire, I just presented the three which supported my point. I don't think that opening up a discussion of the chemistry of pyrolosis has any benefit in a general aviation thread titled "parachutes".

Though a pilot is required to have a fire extinguisher in the cockpit, and that it's presupposed that pilot will use it there, if the circumstances dictate, in this forum, it is unlikely that pilots have extinguishing systems in the engine compartments. Therefore removing the fuel for an engine fire is the best option, and the first thing a pilot should be considering.

the engine still has oil. An oil fire is very difficult to control,

Indeed, hence my reference to exposed fuel. For the engine types prominate in this forum, I would suggest that engine oil fires are very rare, and as there is very little the pilot could do if there were such a fire. Engine oil vapours are rarely exposed to heat and oxygen in concentrations which support fire.

may not be able to ground a magneto through the cockpit controls.

Yup, I agree with this statement, though I hardly think a live mag is a risk as a source of ignition for a fire. A lot of unrelated failurs would have occurr simultaniously for that to happen!

If a fire has occurred, one may nor may not be able to interrupt the field,

If one is flying an aircraft which meets the design requirements, the pilot has control of the alternator/generator field, so have no fear pilots, you'll be able to turn off the master, and remove that ignition source if you need to.

Yes, there are some very minor risks (combined failures) in aviation, that we just cannot mitigate. Let's discuss and mentor those risks we can mitigate. Getting pilots here worried about engine oil fires and uncontrolled electrical sources foward of the firewall really has little value in pilot mentoring in my opinion.

We who certify aircraft designs pay a lot of attention to the flammability characteristics of an aircraft, on both sides of the firewall. Pilots should be reminding themselves, that although nothing is perfect, they have a lot of opportunity to make a fire situation less serious very quickly. Pilots must understand what control they have, and use it (firewall shutoffs, for example).

It would be unfair of me to suggest that aircraft fires do not occasionally occur, and that a few of those are not serious. But, a pilot who has prepared him/herself, has a lot to work with, to make the very least out of a fire in flight - prepare, and play to your strengths....

[RatherBeFlying]

The AFMs commonly specify the sequence of mags off, throttle to idle, mixture off, fuel selector off.

My inclination would be the reverse as fuel selector off halts the supply of fuel. Mags left on should get rid of the fuel in front of the firewall in the most acceptable manner.

Throttle to idle and mixture off before fuel selector off would trap the fuel in the firewall forward fuel system where there is most likely a leak:uhoh:

Discuss.

[SNS3Guppy]

I don't think that opening up a discussion of the chemistry of pyrolosis has any benefit in a general aviation thread titled "parachutes".

I didn't open up the discussion to that topic, you did. When you said "In perfect theory, fire requires three things in adequate proportion: Fuel, heat, and oxygen," in "perfect theory" you were wrong. You were also wrong to state "Aside from the gasoline, which you have now turned off, there's not supposed to ba any other exposed fuel up there. Master off, the heat is no longer supplied to an electrical fire."

Clearly you've never had such a fire. I have. I didn't just do a "firefighter refresher this month" either, but I do have nearly 20 years of professional firefighting experience, and have dealt with such fires in flight (as an aerial firefighter) and on the ground.

Master off means switch off in the cockpit. Think about which side of the firewall the battery master relay is located; the switch only controls the battery master relay, and if that's bridged, then you still have electrical power available. Further, while many light airplanes use lead acid batteries, (their own hazard, if you've ever seen one explode; I have), many airplanes also use NiCad batteries, which can create self-sustaining thermal runaways.

As for oil not becoming combustible, oil burns very well, and oil in contact with hot exhaust and forced ventilation can easily translate into a fire. Oil can come from a failed cylinder, a cracked case, a broken pushrod tube, a failed crankshaft seal, a failed turbo bearing seal, a failed turbo supply line, and other such sources.

I don't think that opening up a discussion of the chemistry of pyrolosis has any benefit in a general aviation thread titled "parachutes".

I didn't open it up. I didn't open up a discussion about shooting one's self to avoid flames, either, but they were put on the table. The hollywood suicide garbage has been gently put to bed, I think but it's you that's perpetuated the discussion on fire and airplanes, so by all means, let's discuss. Burying your head in the sand with comments like "have no fear" is little more than saying "it's alright, kids, it can't happen to you." Yes, it can.

If a fire has occurred forward of the firewall, the ignition source is not necessarily removed from the fire by turning off the master. The ignition source may not be electrical, but if it is, shorts due to the fire may have removed this option from you; you're moving a switch in the cockpit, not actually moving the battery master relay; lose the ability to have that control from the cockpit by one or both wires from the battery master switch, and you've lost control of the battery master relay, and of the electrical system. This can happen as the result of a short. I've experienced it.

The mag can certainly continue to present as an ignition source, which is part of the reason that the mags are turned off as part of the engine shutdown procedure.

Oil can certainly be present in the nacelle or cowl area. Ever had a lifted jug that separates the pushrod tubes and allows oil to pump out? Ever had a cracked case, or failed cylinder? I certainly have. Ever had an oil fire? I certainly have. If you haven't experienced these things, you shouldn't assume they don't happen, aren't possible, or shouldn't be considered. These events are real, they do happen, and if they're outside the realm of your experience, you do no one a favor by dismissing them.

Engine oil vapours are rarely exposed to heat and oxygen in concentrations which support fire.

Rarely, like leaving an oil cap off on one's Cessna turbo 210? I saw that two years ago. In fact, I've seen quite a few folks take oil baths after leaving the filler cap off. You don't think a hot turbo can transform that into a fire? Ever seen just how hot a turbocharger gets? Ever fly a Navajo at night?

Rarely, like seeing all the oil pumped out of the engine onto the exhaust in a Cessna 337? I saw that a couple of years ago, too. Rarely, like a cylinder lifting, or a failed jug, or a jug that leaves the airplane; I've seen that many times over the course of my career. I've had it happen, I've repaired such failures, and I've seen the damage. In many cases an oil fire doesn't occur; I think it's safe to say that the majority of the cases don't see an oil fire. Every single one of them has the distinct potential, however, and that potential is what we consider.

We're unlikely to see a need to shoot ourselves in the cockpit. That's not realistic. The potential for an engine failure, electrical failure, hydraulic failure, cockpit fire, cabin fire, or engine fire is realistic, however, and it's for this reason that we have such procedures in aircraft flight manuals.

Though a pilot is required to have a fire extinguisher in the cockpit, and that it's presupposed that pilot will use it there, if the circumstances dictate, in this forum, it is unlikely that pilots have extinguishing systems in the engine compartments.

You've never had to discharge an extinguisher on the ground for an engine fire? Really?

A member of this forum recently purchased a Twin Commander. His particular model probably doesn't include the fire suppression system, but some do. One I flew last year did. I've seen them installed in other general aviation airplanes, too, as I'm sure you have. People frequent this forum who use all manner of light airplanes; not everyone flies a Cessna 172, so yes, it's entirely possible that a private pilot posting here may use or may purchase an airplane with a fire suppression system installed for the engines and/or engine accessory system. A Cessna 421 that I flew a couple of years ago had one in it, for example.

Additionally, the Twin Commander has fire procedures that go beyond mixture, mags, and fuel. The Twin Commander has hydraulic to consider. Anyone here who flies a Cessna 172RG, 177 RG, 182RG, or 210 should consider the potential for a fire in an electrohydralic pack. I had one several years ago. It continued burning until I got on the ground and put it out with a fire extinguisher. The electrical couldn't be terminated in that case, incidentally, because due to a fire, the master relay had welded itself closed, providing continuous power that I couldn't interrupt. Go figure. (I suspect you're thinking "circuit breaker" presently, but circuit breakers don't always work (had one burn up in a lear several years ago, requiring a return to the airport with smoke in the cockpit), and circuit breakers don't protect components; they're installed to protect wiring.

In a nutshell, despite your attempt to dismiss, these are realities and burying one's head in the sand does no one any good.

Will most posters here ever see these things? Likely not. That is irrelevant.

Most posters here will not see many of the things that happen or can happen in airplanes. Knowing that they can and do happen, knowing that procedures are laid out for them, and knowing those procedures and the systems and what must be done, is critical regardless of whether these things occur. The mere fact that they can occur is enough.

For the engine types prominate in this forum, I would suggest that engine oil fires are very rare, and as there is very little the pilot could do if there were such a fire.

I'm a mechanic and inspector. I disagree.

If one is flying an aircraft which meets the design requirements, the pilot has control of the alternator/generator field, so have no fear pilots, you'll be able to turn off the master, and remove that ignition source if you need to.

Not in a fire. When all is functioning well and properly, you have control. Not necessarily in a fire. When insulation is burned, components melt, shorts occur, you have no idea what you have control over. Not in a fire.

Further, a generator bearing failure, or fire near a generator can quickly become a class D magnesium fire, and that won't be put out. Whether the electrical power is removed by opening the battery master relay, whether the generator field is cut, the generator always produces , and the appliance itself is also an ignition source that can spark in operation. So long as the engine is turning, the generator is also turning, and therein lies another potential source of ignition, and fire.

Getting pilots here worried about engine oil fires and uncontrolled electrical sources foward of the firewall really has little value in pilot mentoring in my opinion.

Burying one's head in the sand has very little value in my opinion. Neither of our opinions are of any consequence here, however. These things can and do happen, and it's for that reason that manufacturers include procedures for them. Manufacturers don't include procedures for shooting one's self in the head; that's fanciful. Having an engine fire or other inflight emergency is not fanciful; it does happen, it is a reality,and one should be prepared for it, know the specific actions necessary for the make, model, and serial number of airplane that one is flying, and be prepared to execute the memory items from that procedure without hesitation.

Again, I didn't introduce this topic. I did address it. Then again, I don't see much discussion on parachutes being tossed around any more, so here we are.

The notion of thread drift as a fault is idiotic. I don't recall ever having been in a conversation with anyone when someone actually piped up and said "I'm sorry, but that wasn't part of the original sentence spoken by the first person to open their mouth in this conversation, and therefore we can't talk about it." That would be stupid. Likewise, all conversations drift somewhat, and as fire was introduced in this thread, it's continued along that vein quite naturally. Nothing wrong with that at all. The only time it is a problem occurs when someone can't contribute to the thread (doubtless the forums most prolific poster will be along shortly to rectify that).

It would be unfair of me to suggest that aircraft fires do not occasionally occur, and that a few of those are not serious.

Yes, it would.

My inclination would be the reverse as fuel selector off halts the supply of fuel. Mags left on should get rid of the fuel in front of the firewall in the most acceptable manner.

Throttle to idle and mixture off before fuel selector off would trap the fuel in the firewall forward fuel system where there is most likely a leak

Discuss.

Don't get too rambunctious guessing about the procedure you *think* would work, vs. what the manufacturer provides. Know your systems, certainly, and remember that not all situations can be accounted for in canned procedures, but don't discount the basic procedures set out, either.

Pilots have been seriously injured in the past when they took off with a fuel selector off or switched the selector just prior to takeoff to a tank with water or bad fuel. The engine can continue to run just long enough, even at takeoff fuel flow settings, to get you into the air and in the worst possible position.

On the ground, shutting off the fuel selector may do little more than give you a long wait while the fire burns. Shutting off the engine may be important for several reasons, and the fire source may not be what you think.

A failed induction tube or induction section isn't uncommon. I've seen quite a few airplanes over the years that had damaged or burned flexible couplings in the induction (many light airplanes use them); these leak, or come off, or get blown off during a backfire, and clamps loosen or fail. Some engines with tightly packed exhaust and induction use heat shields to protect these couplings, but they fail, and they fail often near the exhaust outlet from the cylinder head, or near the cylinder head. These can pump out the perfect fuel air mixture.

The diaphram in the fuel flow divider can fail, pumping fuel overboard, often directly on top of the engine. Fuel lines can fail, injector lines can rupture, as can primer lines. Carburetor floats stick or sink. I've seen some very large fuel leaks occur over the years.

If you truly understand your system and know the immediate problem and can work through it given unique circumstances, then you may require unusual steps to tackle the problem. Generally, however, making up your own procedures isn't a wise idea.

[Plasmech]

Who is the "Gupster"?

At far as guns go, I am 100% for them for self defense purposes. Every man has the right to defend his life and the lives of his family.

As an emergency euthanasia implement in case the pilot catches fire, I would say that today the chances of this happening are low enough that the gun is not worth its own weight.

What are the statistics on cockpit fires anyway?

[SNS3Guppy]

Who is the "Gupster"?

Me, apparently.

At far as guns go, I am 100% for them for self defense purposes. Every man has the right to defend his life and the lives of his family.

Now that is entirely irrelevant not just to the thread, but to the forum, and to this web site.

As an emergency euthanasia implement in case the pilot catches fire, I would say that today the chances of this happening are low enough that the gun is not worth its own weight.


Chances? What's "chance" about inflight suicide?

Not only is this idiocy irrelevant and fanciful, but it has no place in a serious discussion among pilots, private or otherwise. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable publishing this tripe in the jetblast section.

[BackPacker]

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable publishing this tripe in the jetblast section.

Amen.

(Padded to at least 10 characters.)

[FlyingKiwi_73]

<sigh> suicide and guns in the cockpit really?

you know what i'm worried about, meteors! man those things can really ding an aircraft.... phew!

Luckily the tin foil hat i wear protects me from these and the CIA listening to my thoughts.

[SNS3Guppy]

you know what i'm worried about, meteors!

A couple of months ago I watched a meteor shower on a calm, clear night over Pakistan. We turned the cockpit lights low and counted shooting stars. Someone quipped the very same thing, musing about the odds of getting hit by a meteorite.

I suspect that should such a thing happen, we'd never need worry about it again, and almost certainly wouldn't know what hit us.

Getting hit with divorce papers or a law suit of some other kind is a much bigger worry.

[BackPacker]

Getting hit with divorce papers or a law suit of some other kind is a much bigger worry.

Birdstrike.

Mine was a seagull that I hit on short final, doing about 70 knots at the time.

Completely deformed the leading edge between the two outmost ribs (PA28). Couldn't believe the damage it did.

Nose down, add a touch more power because a deformation like that sure isn't going to decrease the stall speed, and landed safely. Repairs to the plane took three weeks.

[SNS3Guppy]

I hit a perigrine falcon near the Grand Canyon in a Cessna 210; it peeled the leading edge back to the spar.

I hit something one halloween night, at 10,000' in a Cessna 182, around one in the morning, in the mountains. A big bang, like someone took a chunk of wood and smacked the windscreen. When I shined a light on the windscreen, blood was everywhere. A few feathers were the dead giveaway. I have no idea what I hit, but it was my first birdstrike at night.

20 years later I hit a bird near Las Vegas at one in the morning, also at ten thousand feet. I heard a loud bang, and thought I'd had a failure associated with pressure, at first. Cabin pressure was fine, but when I looked crosscockpit through the windscreen at the lights of Las Vegas, the view was broken, opaque. Whatever I hit crushed the radome and got the right side windscreen.

When doing ag as a kid, I had a lot of birdstrikes, dozens at a time, when the flocks of birds would nestle down in the crop. My approach apparently surprised them, as I was flying low and I imagine the crop muffled the approach. Flocks rose out of the crop suddently, and they'd strike all over the airplane; they made a sound like popcorn (I called them "popcorn birds" because of the noise). Mostly they only left slight dings in the leading edge, feathers and a little blood here and there. Frequently at least one would get stuffed down the ram air port on the automatic flagman on the right wing; when I opened it up to restock the flags between flights, often the mangled remains of one or two birds were jammed in there. Occasionally they'd come through the cockpit vents, either at the wing roots, or over the top of the cockpit. A fresh air scoop vented over the top, and once in a while the birds made it through the prop, and struck the wire cutter on the windscreen. The birds split in two, half going past one side of the canopy, half going the other way. Sometimes the bird would ride the blade to the top of the canopy, enter the fresh air scoop, and explode down the back of my shirt.

Now that I think about it, exploding birds don't have much to do with the thread topic either, but it's certainly more interesting than re-inventing emergency fire procedures using a handgun. I suspect it happens a lot more, too.

[BackPacker]

certainly more interesting than re-inventing emergency fire procedures using a handgun.

We're on page three of this thread so a little thread diversion is OK. How about using your handgun to shoot the birds before they hit the aircraft.:}

[SNS3Guppy]

I'm afraid I'd probably shoot myself in the process. I'm afraid this one goes to the birds.

[BackPacker]

Reminds me of an old joke...

"What's the last thing that goes through a fly's mind when he hits the windscreen?"











(His butt)

[SNS3Guppy]

I believe it was Mary Chapin Carpenter that had a popular song along the lines of "Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."

If I were to go back through my life and take count, I'd say I've spent more time as the bug.