BRS equipped plane for training [Archive]

Genghis the Engineer

16th Jan 2012, 20:03

The VLA version C42 is a homebuilt, so can only be used for training if you own it outright I'm afraid.

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards). I'd just concentrate on finding a good school with a good training aeroplane.

The ubiquitous Cessna 152, PA28 and Cessna 172 are all great training aeroplanes, and very common. Finding a good school can be a little harder work! There are loads on threads on that subject however.

If you fancy learning in a C42, go to a good microlight school such as Airborne at Popham, who use the type. But most of those won't use the BRS either. The C42 is a very good training aeroplane and you'll enjoy it.

I can't say it would worry me - I've flown with BRS for test programmes, but would not regard it as far off the bottom of my wishlist for most flying. Good maintenance, and especially a really good instructor and a user friendly airfield, are far more important when learning - and a pilot's professionalism and currency thereafter.

G

vjmehra

16th Jan 2012, 21:40

Yeah, that does seem to be the conventional view. However having studied a decent number of NTSB crash reports it does seem that whilst it can't be proved, on a number of occasions chute's could have at least possibly prevented fatalities (speculation of course I realise).

I may well end up going down the route you suggest in reality, although I'm still on the look out if anyone can suggest anywhere (that saide, other than the Cirrus, with the Ikarus out of the question am I out of alternatives)?

Pilot DAR

16th Jan 2012, 22:20

I'm with Genghis on this one. In 35 years of flying, I have never once thought to myself "gosh, I wish I had a parachute right now", and this include the jumper flying I did, where they made me wear one!

Concentrate on getting good instruction, building your skills, flying within them, and flying well maintained aircraft, with enough fuel, and you're not going to need a BRS. If proper training, and your demonstrating your skills don't reassure you that a BRS is redundant, you should reassess you commitment to wanting to fly.

One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed. Don't worry about having to hit the silk....

vjmehra

16th Jan 2012, 22:31

'If proper training, and your demonstrating your skills don't reassure you that a BRS is redundant, you should reassess you commitment to wanting to fly.'

I don't agree with this statement, good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failiure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision (where you were following correct procedure and the other pilot wasn't).

I appreciate these events may be statistically improbable and I may yet decide to accept the risk, however I don't feel you can categorically say training can protect you from every eventuality and presumably part of being a good pilot is assessing risk and deciding the best course of action. In essence, thats what I'm trying to do here, there may be a minimal risk, but if possible I would like to reduce it even further!

Presumably enough people must be worried enough about events such as these, otherwise Cirrus planes wouldn't be so popular?

Pilot DAR

16th Jan 2012, 23:17

good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failiure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision

I can't say that the foregoing never occur, but I can say that no pilot I know has ever suffered any of those at a severity which made deploying a 'chute something they would consider. A freak accident could as likely result from a failure of the 'chute to deploy! I just don't think to protect against these risks, other than the basic cautions of a good look out, and good maintenance.

What's the level of interest in BRS systems? They are STC'd into Cessna 150's, and for probably 6000 to 7000 of these aircraft flying, only three systems were sold. It would appear that the risk vs cost did not work well for everyone else.

I think that being equipped with a BRS would be only one of many factors which would make the Cirrus popular. As Genghis mentions, I understand it was required to make up for other handling deficiencies. It would be those deficiencies which would worry me! I understand that it is a somewhat limited envelope of flight, for which the 'chute can be deployed, what about all the flying you do which is not in that envelope? If the Cirrus had flying characteristics which did not require a BRS, and it was a factory option, I would buy the plane without, given the choice.

These systems are heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain. You can pay those costs, which are very certainly built into the rental cost of the aircraft, if you want, but know that you are paying a cost which most other pilots consider unnecessary.

I don't intend the foregoing to come across as patronizing, but rather reassuring. You would probably not wear a nomex flight suit for every flight, but I expect that a fire is a greater risk! There are so many "low level" risks in flying, guarding against every one, all the time, gets very heavy and costly.

Your choice though....

chrisN

17th Jan 2012, 00:48

Aviation Video: Collision With a Glider Tow Line | Patrick's Aviation (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/popejoshpope/3104/)

“This amazing video (excerpted from CNN) shows an aircraft deploying an all-aircraft parachute made by Ballistic Recovery Systems of St. Paul, MN, after colliding with a glider tow-plane.”

I wish I had one in my glider. I doubt if I could get out to use my personal parachute, even if I were to survive a collision in a condition and high enough to deploy it.

Chris N
==================

NazgulAir

17th Jan 2012, 01:07

Presumably enough people must be worried enough about events such as these, otherwise Cirrus planes wouldn't be so popular?

Perhaps it's a different approach to caution that leads some people to think BRS-equipped aircraft are safer. People who might think that flying without a BRS is unsafe for some reason?

I find it worrying that there are so many of them that they can make BRS-equipped aircraft so popular.

Unexpected structural failures and sudden unexpected loss of control -- two instances where I'd regret not having a BRS -- are so rare a risk that it's ludicrous to call an aircraft safer because it has a BRS. The more common causes of accidents resulting in serious injuries or death are chains of events in which human error is a factor, and I'd much rather spend money on training and safety awareness foremost instead of relying on a piece of equipment to get me out of trouble.

The statistics are not encouraging and seem to suggest that the on-board BRS might give some people a false sense of security. It certainly isn't the answer to all emergencies.

Tinstaafl

17th Jan 2012, 03:44

A and C

17th Jan 2012, 05:30

You have hit the nail on the head, I completely agree.

peterh337

17th Jan 2012, 06:45

I very much agree. The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been in circumstances where there was no need to use the chute.

However, the report of "the wife" liking the chute option is awfully persistent :)

Like the "simple" fixed landing gear, and the "simple" but awfully crude way they did away with the prop RPM lever (which causes every SR20/22 owner to burn perhaps 5% more juice) it is very good marketing.

gasax

17th Jan 2012, 07:19

From the context of the questions you have asked you do not have much personal knowledge.

So good idea to post here and get a much more considered reply. Might also be worth looking for a copy of January's Flying magazine. It has a very telling article from a flight instructor on her views of people learning in what in the US is called a TAA - Technically Advanced Aircraft - actually a Cirrus.

It essentially says if you teach people to fly in a TAA - using the auto pilot and glass screens - they have insufficient flying skill to manage the aircraft if the autos give up - which then leaves them with only the 'chute as an option. A very thought provoking article.

172driver

17th Jan 2012, 08:26

While I don't really agree with most sentiments re the BRS here - to me it smacks a little of the 'don't use GPS for navigation' :ugh: argument - I wholeheartedly agree with this:

It essentially says if you teach people to fly in a TAA - using the auto pilot and glass screens - they have insufficient flying skill to manage the aircraft if theautos give up - which then leaves then with only the 'chute as an option.

In fact, you can read a lot more about this general trend right here on Pprune, just pop over to the R&N forum and read the AF477 thread(s) and some others. Scary stuff.

By all means get yourself a BRS equipped a/c, I think it'll be a great thing to have, but learn to FLY airplanes first! That way you will hopefully never need it.

patowalker

17th Jan 2012, 08:32

If you fancy learning in a C42, go to a good microlight school such as Airborne at Popham, who use the type. But most of those won't use the BRS either.

A bit off topic, but some C42 microlights are now being fitted with parachutes to take advantage of the increase in MTOW. The allowance is 22.5kg and fitting the approved Galaxy system means there is about 11kgs available for additional fuel or crew weight.
Ironically, many think they are being fitted for safety reasons.

Rod1

17th Jan 2012, 08:48

“I don't agree with this statement, good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision (where you were following correct procedure and the other pilot wasn't).”

Proper training can certainly reduce your chances of mid air collisions. Structural failure due to miss handling the aircraft does happen occasionally, but again good training will impact this, wings falling off for no reason never happens as far as I can remember. Birds do not usually make the airframe to uncontrollable. If you are really wedded to the idea, and your training is safer than your first 100 h as a PPL, then find an aerobatic machine that will accept a conventional chute.
A BRS was an option on my aircraft but I sis not fit it. It can cause accidents due to reduced performance etc as well as bail you out. Excellent marketing idea, the other ½ will love it.

Rod1

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 10:32

I think the money spent on a BRS system is better spent on training & currency. By & large, training, currency & good airmanship negate the need. Look at the two greatest factors in GA accidents: Fuel starvation/exhaustion, and flight into IMC by an insufficiently qualified pilot.

Sorry Freelunch, but you are miles out (although as I'll explain in a moment, I still agree with your conclusions).

The well regarded GASCo 29 year fatal accidents study showed the following proportions of accident causal factors in the UK:

LoC VFR: 25%
Low flying and aeros: 16%
CFIT: 12%
Forced landing: 12%
LoC IMC: 8%
Mid-air: 6%
Ground collision: 5%
Airframe failure: 4%
Problem on low approach: 4%
Medical / suicide: 3%
Unknown: 5%

A proportion of the LoC IMC accidents will be from inadvertent flight into IMC - let's guess half. A proportion of the forced landings will be due to fuel mismanagement, let's guess half again. That puts your "two greatest factors" contributing to about 10% of fatal accidents.

The reason that I agree with your conclusions however are that of the rest - virtually all of the LoC VFR are due to manoeuvring at low level, and maybe a quarter of the LoC IMC. Ground collision is ground collision, so is a problem on low approach, so are mishandled low level aeros. Add all those up and you get about 64% of all fatal accidents - let's call it two thirds, are at low level where the parachute has not enough time to do any good.

Add to that mid-airs, a proportion of which will either kill you outright or disable the parachute, let's guess half again; also assume that some of the unknowns were too low-level for the chute, and some of the medical ones the pilot was unconscious anyhow from a heart attack or some other issue, so unable to pull the handle....

... And *maybe* in 30% of fatal accident scenarios, a BRS would have had value. That's 30% of a (statistically) 1 in 70,000 hrs event.

So, multiple the odds of being in a fatal accident circumstance, by the odds of the BRS then being able to help you - and I reckon you get about 1 in 230,000 chances, per flying hour, of it doing any good.

Fly 100 hours a year (quite a lot, but roughly what I do), then assume a 40 year flying career, and you get a 1 in 60 chance of ever actually needing that chute.

More likely for a typical keen PPL - 20 hours per year for 20 years, and it becomes around 1 in 600.

For the financial investment, I think that training, good aircraft maintenance, and maintaining currency - will show a far better return. It'll help avoid the other 2/3 of accidents! A good moving map GPS with current airspace and terrain databases, plus an aeroplane which happens to have a really loud and intrusive stall warned, will betweeen them offer far greater benefits, for a lot less money. So will instrument training, and keeping that training current.

BRS are mandatory in Germany on Ultralights - and if you look at their structural standards, and history of in-flight breakups particularly of high performance ultralights, that's appropriate. FAR-103 ultralights in the USA have no structural or maintenance oversight, so I'd probably want one on one of those as well. I have several times in my life insisted on a BRS before flying a spinning programme on an aeroplane that I couldn't bale out of.

But on any British microlight, or any aeroplane worldwide with a CofA, frankly they're decoration - and can cause problems themselves given that you have an explosive device which might potentially fire inadvertently following a survivable crash, making the situation worse, not better.

G

paulp

17th Jan 2012, 12:15

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards).

Not true. The BRS system was included as standard because Alan Klapmeirer was involved in a midair and pressured his brother, Dale, to make it standard. Dale wanted to make it an option. Once that decision was made, it was decided to save money by using the Equivalent Level of Safety provision to reduce certification cost. A limited spin series was conducted for European certification which the Cirrus passed with no issues.

I'm with Genghis on this one. In 35 years of flying, I have never once thought to myself "gosh, I wish I had a parachute right now", and this include the jumper flying I did, where they made me wear one!

For me the main times I think about the chute is night and over low overcast.

One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed.

I don't know if the 50% number is correct but I agree in principle. The BRS system is useful in only a subset of instances. It will not help if you fly into the side of a mountain. More importantly, it won't help in a base to final stall incident.

I can say that no pilot I know has ever suffered any of those at a severity which made deploying a 'chute something they would consider. A freak accident could as likely result from a failure of the 'chute to deploy!

I have. I also had a friend die because he tried to make the airport rather than pull. He staled just shy of the runway. Listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about missing her dad was tough.

These systems are heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain.

Very true. Just like a second engine, more seats, a bigger engine, thESE are very valid reasons for not wanting the system. Aircraft are a tradeoff of many things and BRS is one of those tradeoff decisions. For example, you need to budget about $1,000US/yr for the 10 year refit.

Even if a forced landing is necessary, statistics show that arriving in a reasonably clear area, under control at a low speed has a rather good outcome in terms of survival.

This is one area where I like the BRS system. While survivable, many off airport landings result in severe injuries. Take your car and drive over a field at 100km/hr. Now imagine being on small tires without shocks. The record of BRS is very good as far as injuries. Also, the record for off airport landings is bolstered by planes with low stall speeds. The percentage of accidents that result in fatalities goes up almost linearly with stall speed. The SR22 has a 59kt stall speed. In many ways it is much closer to a C310 than a C172.

BRS works well above 200m and has worked at much lower altitudes. Actual deployments have succeeded at 180kts although 133 indicated is the POH number.

The psychology of the BRS system is interesting whether you like it or don't. To the people enthralled by it I want to remind them that it is not a cure all and doesn't apply to a wide variety of accident scenarios. On the other hand, those against it talk about spin accidents as if being spin certified would make a difference. Twins aren't spin certified but people don't seem bothered by that. A stall in the pattern is too low for spin recover to be an issue. Stall recovery is what is important and the Cirrus has excellent stall recovery characteristics.

The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been in circumstances where there was no need to use the chute.

I strongly disagree with this. What I see is more a case of people not pulling when they should have.

I agree with the training comments on TAA aircraft but there is also the issue of making sure you know how to use what you have. A good autopilot can really help if you get into trouble and know how to use it. As an example of not knowing your aircraft I like the NASA report where the pilot busted class B because a message covered his GPS screen and he didn't know how to clear it. You need to fully know the systems.

With respect to Cirrus, an interesting statistic is that 22% of accidents involve IMC as opposed to 5% for Diamond. If you go to Flightaware.com and look at planes in the ATC system you see a lot of Cirrus aircraft. This is a fast, cross country plane and the accident record reflects that. Someone once said "You don't buy a twin to fly circuits." You don't get an SR22 to just take local flights in good weather. I tell people that the SR22 is dangerous because it is fast and comfortable. When I transitioned, my "awakenings" were:

1) Need for approach planning. About 20nm out I start planning altitude and consider reducing power.

2) Weather. Even a fun practice flight involves a serious look at weather since it is easy to wind up far from where I started.

3) Speed management especially on landing. At 3400lb max gross and about 80 kts over the numbers there is a lot of kinetic energy on landing. Combine that with small tires and springy gear (no shocks) and you see you can't be sloppy.

As for the combined throttle/prop control on the Cirrus, you can get the same effect as a prop control when the throttle is wide open but you do have less flexibility elsewhere. From 2500 RPM to 2700 RPM the "throttle" is really fully open ant it is just a prop control. I have a very slow SR22. Why I don't know. I get about 160kts @ 10.5GPH at 17K' and about 167kts at 15 gph at 5000'.

patowalker

17th Jan 2012, 13:23

and can cause problems themselves given that you have an explosive device which might potentially fire inadvertently following a survivable crash, making the situation worse, not better.

I would hate to be lying injured in aircraft wreckage with a live BRS while Fireman Sam deciphers this http://brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/First%20Responders.pdf

Mechta

17th Jan 2012, 13:29

It certainly seems bizarre to me, as a glider pilot, that it is normal to wear a parachute in a pure glider, but not in a motor glider (Falke) which is often in the same thermals. Sitting in the middle of the Falke's fuel system (tank behind, gascolator etc. somewhere above my knees and the engine only a few inches in front of that) and in a fabric covered aircraft to boot, the risk from fire seems pretty high, and the risk of collision the same as the glider.

In the cases of the three mid-air collisions suffered by Air Cadet Grob Tutors on air experience flights, reading between the lines of the accident reports, it would appear that had ballistically deployed airframe parachutes been fitted, that could have been operated by a briefed cadet, lives would have been saved. I hope they are included in the specification of any future replacement.

Expecting a first time flier to make a successful exit, make what is probably their first free fall parachute jump and steer it to a safe landing, is a tall order, although I am aware of at least two instances in which it has happened.

Pulling a BRS handle and staying where you are (in all cases except fire) strikes me as giving the average person the best chance of survival.

To criticise the Cirrus pilots who have made successful parachute recoveries, once they had evaluated the situation they were in and and assessed the skills and experience available, seems churlish. Any sim pilot can, after a few attempts come up with an alternative scenario, but the choice with the highest chance of survival at the time is the one that matters.

sdbeach

17th Jan 2012, 17:18

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards).
This misinformation needs to stop. Read this web info: Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin) (http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx)
Spinning characteristics in the Cirrus SR20/SR22 are conventional. The Europeans did test spin characteristics and published a report to this effect.

What happened is that Cirrus and the FAA both agreed that including a ballistic parachute would afford a pilot additional recovery options for stall/spin accidents. Their research showed that pilots died in planes certified for spins because the pilots either failed to recover correctly or did not have the altitude to recover. Consequently, the FAA (and all subsequent national certifications such as the Europeans) approved an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) for complying with the spin certification requirement. To qualify, Cirrus had to demonstrate that the ballistic parachute would recover a plane in a fully developed spin after 1-1/2 turns. The parachute did.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

17th Jan 2012, 17:26

One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed. Don't worry about having to hit the silk....
If you fly a Cirrus aircraft, or any other aircraft equipped with a ballistic parachute, then worry -- at least, think carefully before you fly. Think about the habits that you have formed in primary flight training that might get in the way of using the parachute recovery. It's the primacy effect -- under stress we revert back to your strongest habits.

In the Cirrus accident history, the parachute would have helped avoid 105 fatalities. By my estimate, in about 60% of the fatal accidents, the accident pilot encountered a scenario eerily similar to a successful parachute deployment, but didn't pull -- high altitude loss of control, icing, disorientation, loss of engine power, etc.

So, despite the need to train and demonstrate emergency procedures, the presence of a ballistic parachute needs to be considered. If you fly as if you didn't have one, then you may die as if you didn't have one.

Cheers
Rick

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 17:39

There are some clear factual innacuracies in that page, for example:

Modern production airplanes are, in general, not tested or certified for spins.

Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, certified for spins – but the mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400, etc), Diamond, Mooney, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been tested or certified for spins.

This last sentence is complete nonsense. Virtually all part 23 light aeroplanes are tested for spin recovery and required to meet the following rule in FAR-23:

23.221 Spinning.

(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category
airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second
spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.

Very very few aeroplanes can be found to be spin resistant and I've never yet met any in the part 23 category, although I'm sure that there are a few.

The use of an alternative safety case did apply to the BRS on the Cirrus, but it has not so far as I know been applied to any other common GA aeroplane. I have seen many papers on spinning programmes for numerous GA aeroplanes at test piloting conferences. A quick check on the SETP papers database for example shows papers on the spinning programmes of the DR2160, Gippsland GA8, a handful of UK microlights, the Derringer, the Lancair Columbia and 400, Piper Arrow, Grumman AA1, Beech C-23, C206, Firefly.

One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.

Further, this is from the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association website:

Experimental test-flight accident, not included in Cirrus production fatal accidents counts, occurred during pre-production flight testing when aileron jammed. SR20 prototype was not equipped with a CAPS parachute. Test pilot Scott Anderson is memorialized by the ANDOE waypoint for the outer marker on the ILS runway 27 approach to Duluth.

Disregarding the facts of the sad fatal accident itself - if the CAPS was really an inherent part of the design from day 1, why was it not fitted for the entirety of the flight test programme?

So, whether the parachute was an original part of the design or not, there are significant inaccuracies on that webpage. That tends to make me distrust it overall.

G

N.B. Before anybody asks, no I can't give anybody the link to the SETP papers database - it's members only access I'm afraid.

sdbeach

17th Jan 2012, 17:41

As Genghis mentions, I understand it was required to make up for other handling deficiencies. It would be those deficiencies which would worry me! I understand that it is a somewhat limited envelope of flight, for which the 'chute can be deployed, what about all the flying you do which is not in that envelope? If the Cirrus had flying characteristics which did not require a BRS, and it was a factory option, I would buy the plane without, given the choice.
As I just posted, the Cirrus installation of the ballistic parachute was an intentional safety feature and not required to make up for any deficiencies. This misinformation is unfortunate -- the Cirrus is a high-performance airframe with laminar flow wings and stall inhibiting design that stalls conventionally and recovers from spins conventionally.

As for buying a Cirrus if it had an option you could decline, there are several Cirrus owners who admit that was their initial desire, but they had no choice. And they still have no choice.

Now, after 28 saves of 53 survivors in a wide variety of scenarios, those owners enthusiastically support the parachute as a factory configuration and are convinced that the parachute adds a level of safety unlike any other.

See this history (http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSHistory.aspx) of Cirrus parachute pulls. People have survived catastrophic engine failure, maintenance induced failures, high-altitude loss of control, low-altitude loss of control, icing, fuel exhaustion, misfueling with Jet-A, and pilot incapacitation. Landings under parachute have occurred in forests, trees, shrubs, golf courses, mountain slopes, inhospitable terrain, rivers, lakes, oceans, power lines, residential street, soft fields, frozen fields, essentially lots of places you would not want to risk an off-airport landing.

There are lots of reasons for personal preferences in choosing an airplane. Please ensure that your choices are based on factual ones.

Cheers
Rick

patowalker

17th Jan 2012, 17:46

BRS are mandatory in Germany on Ultralights - and if you look at their structural standards, and history of in-flight breakups particularly of high performance ultralights, that's appropriate.

Any data on these in-flight breakups? Could it be that having a BRS results in pilots pushing their own and their aircraft's limits?

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 17:54

I've had high altitude loss of control several times in ejector seat equipped aeroplanes. We recovered the aircraft as trained, and I still don't have a Martin Baker tie.

Why are Cirrus pilots pulling the handle for high altitude LoC in an aeroplane that allegedly has a satisfactory stall and spin recovery? For that matter, why are the LoC happening often enough to notice? - they aren't generally happening in other aeroplanes. Testing military aircraft, we had an excuse - but in what is basically a luxury touring aeroplane?

G

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 17:57

Any data on these in-flight breakups? Could it be that having a BRS results in pilots pushing their own and their aircraft's limits?

I used to have access to that data in a previous job, I don't now.

There were certainly instances where people pushed the aircraft further than was wise, but there were also instances where you could put the blame firmly on poor structural standards.

G

sdbeach

17th Jan 2012, 18:10

One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.
I have no idea about a spin-resistant certification, but I do know about JAA testing of the Cirrus SR20 Equivalent Level of Safety to satisfy the JAR 23.221 certification for spin recovery. See this web page (http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/582392.aspx) to download a copy of the report published by JAA. The ultimate conclusion of the spin testing was that the ELOS criteria was satisfied. Interestingly, both the FAA and JAA acknowledge that the majority of general aviation pilots do not receive spin training as it is no longer required for pilot certification.

So, one can pine away for more pilot skills or acknowledge that additional safety innovations help the average pilot. We need ways to attract more pilots to keep general aviation alive.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

17th Jan 2012, 18:23

Why are Cirrus pilots pulling the handle for high altitude LoC in an aeroplane that allegedly has a satisfactory stall and spin recovery? For that matter, why are the LoC happening often enough to notice? - they aren't generally happening in other aeroplanes.
Good question. Why?

One Cirrus pilot was an instructor with aerobatic experience who thinks his autopilot stalled the aircraft in a climb above 15,000 feet. His attempts at recovery were not working as the plane descended into a stratus layer, so he pulled the red handle and deployed the parachute rather than attempt recovery in IMC. He and his wife floated down for many minutes, perhaps 8, and landed in a walnut grove where nothing broke, no wine bottles, no olive oil bottles, no glass holiday ornaments!

Another pilot encountered severe icing and pulled. He and 2 passengers walked out of the plane. Another had his pitot tube ice up and he pushed the nose over to regain airspeed, only to get a terrain alert in IMC so pulled up. He pulled the red handle at the top of a loop at 34 knots while inverted, which he didn't realize until he saw the animated visualisation of his flight!

A philosophical approach to safety that I support is that getting into a bad situation, nor making a mistake while flying, should not be a death sentence.

Cheers
Rick

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 18:28

Oh we need more pilots, and for the record roughly 15 years ago I wrote the UK's first regulations for fitting BRS, which are still in use. So I am not anti-BRS.

I am anti tenuous arguments. If somebody wants to fit a BRS, and it makes them happy, best of luck - and I'm glad to participate in getting it right. I have fitted and mandated BRS - for flight test programmes, and been greatly comforted by that handle when flying the first spin in a new aeroplane type.

I am however of the opinion that efforts on pilot training, in cockpit ergonomics, and efforts in achieving stall and spin resistance in an aeroplane design, will reap far greater rewards than fitting a BRS for most pilots in most aeroplanes.

What brings new pilots in is another question - I suspect it's low cost pleasant aeroplanes under 10 years old (as an alternative to high cost tatty elderly spamcans) in the first instance. If we can bring a bit more of the 1920s-1950s glamour back into aviation, that'll probably help too. A specific safety feature on a quarter million pound aeroplane probably won't.

G

Genghis the Engineer

17th Jan 2012, 18:34

Some interesting points there SD.

I've twice in my life got into moderate icing in a non-de-iced aeroplane and scared myself somewhat, but both times flew out of it. The laminar flow wing of the Cirrus is probably a lot less tolerant than what I was flying at the time. Is a BRS, or a de-icing system of greater benefit there however?

Pitch trim runaways are a really interesting point. They have caused a number of aircraft to be lost over the years, and to the best of my knowledge have never routinely been a part of any pilot training regime - nor have I ever seen guidance on it in any POH. There's probably a whole new thread in that.

Looking at that JAA report, I accept your point - it was subject to a limited spin test programme, which did not show problems. They simply didn't fly a full spin test programme.

G

paulp

17th Jan 2012, 20:22

In another case a person had water in the static lines. His instruments were acting crazy and he was in low IMC so he pulled. Because the plane was recovered, the water was found. Interestingly it was tap water so it may have come from high pressure washing. Changes were made to the static system as a result.

In a similar case a pilot gets disoriented in IMC. The plane climbs and descends and at times appears under control. ATC effectively declares an emergency for the pilot. The pilot never pulls and eventually crashes and dies.

As for the test pilot incident that was mentioned, it is common in developing a new design to not have all aspects on the design while initial testing is being done. For example, Cirrus was a small company with limited resources. If you watch the video of the chute pull what isn't shown is that the system was modified so the chute could be release after the engine was restarted so the plane could fly away. That avoided the expense of having the plane impact the ground. The aileron issue that killed the test pilot was fixed prior to production. Initially, the plane was intended by Dale to be offered with BRS as an option. It was Alan who pushed to make it standard.

As for the comment on ice, my personal experience is that ice is bad on a Cirrus. I got it once. It wasn't much but the impact on performance was huge.

vjmehra

18th Jan 2012, 22:03

Quite an interesting thread! A lot of useful advice, although I'm a bit confused at some of the negativity towards BRS, I can understand why people may not feel its necessary, but quite why you wouldn't want it as a does confuse me still slightly, even if certain events are statistically improbable, it doesn't mean they can't happen and all the training in the world can't change that!

But in short, it sounds like, if I want to go down this route for training, my only option by default is TAA at Denham!

Pilot DAR

19th Jan 2012, 00:42

I'm not so sure that it's negativity, so much as it's a feeling that it's cautious to the extreme. For me, it's akin to saying that you'd like to learn to fly in a twin, so as to reduce the chance that an engine failure would result in a forced landing. Fine, if you're willing to spend the money, but it still does not protect you from runing out of fuel.

Every time there's a new innovation, there's a group who say that you can't do without it - well we did before...

My relaxed feeling about this comes from flying 6300 hours in 223 airplanes and helicopters in 36 years, and never once thinking that I needed to abandon the flight. Many other posters here would have greater numbers than those. I was made to wear a chute while flying jumpers, only in case a jumper hit and damaged the plane on the way out - I imagine I still would have tried to land it. The worst thing that's ever happened to me in association with flying, was walking away from the plane after tying it down, and slipping on the ice, falling, and hitting my head really hard on the ice. I suppose I should have worn a helmet!

I have never taken military flight training, but I am imagining there is a whole extra session, where the pilot is taught: "okay, there may come a time when flying is no longer an option, in that case, count to one, and pull this handle". It's the "fight or flee" instinct. Civil flight training teaches fight, but not flee. Perhaps a class in "flee" would do me some good, though it was only while flying jumpers have I ever worn a 'chute. (although flying the Tiger Moth last month, I sat on it, but I think it had not been inspected for more than 8 years, so I did not fasten it up).

I would worry that a pilot who was trained that BRS was a normal equipment expectation, would simply feel naked in an aircraft without it. I'm sure Cirrus loves this philosophy, but there is a whole lot of really fun flying you're going to miss out on, if you will fly in a BRS equipped aircraft.

It's not intended as a criticism of your stated preference, but an observation that you might miss out on what we enjoy the most about flying....

Tinstaafl

19th Jan 2012, 01:22

It's akin to when you drive your car: Have you improved the brakes & tyres to improve your ability to stop, or are they still stock? Do you also wear a helmet with head restraint equipment, flame proof clothing & have fitted a 5 point harness and a carbon fibre driver's capsule? I'll wager the answer(s) is no - because the circumstances in which those would be worth the cost & limitations imposed for the likely hood of use aren't a great enough risk.

BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.

Mechta

19th Jan 2012, 02:32

Why does this thread remind me of the first 21 seconds of this clip? (click where it says 'Aces High' to view, not on the 'play' arrow):

Ko8dDkwKvLQ

sdbeach

19th Jan 2012, 03:22

BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.
Sigh... lovely debate to have it summed up nicely as stating that safety innovations are not justified -- instead of saving yourself, you could invest in more training and useful load.

I can only imagine the state of general aviation in the future if we follow this logical thinking and can only rely upon the old ways of doing things.

In my research, I have now talked with the pilots of 8 of the 28 Cirrus parachute pulls about their experiences. Universally, they report dislike of this attitude represented in the negativity towards the system and the pilots who fly it. Universally, they admit that they got into a situation that overwhelmed their training, their airmanship, conservative decision-making.

Now what?

They had an innovative safety feature that changed their plan. And they and their passengers all survived.

Could they have survived without pulling the red handle? Universally, they ask themselves that question, some endlessly, some with finality.

But they all admit that they would rather pull the handle, see their family again, and avoid the negativity.

Cheers
Rick

peterh337

19th Jan 2012, 06:29

Without a doubt, the # if Cirrus fatals would have been lower if they all had rigorous training and no BRS, than the present situation with BRS.

But that isn't going to happen, because this is GA / private flying. Anybody with a PPL can buy an SR22 can jump in.

An SR22 is not at all hard to fly (seems similar to my TB20) but obviously you can kill yourself in any plane.

But then you can climb a rock without mandatory training, which is only correct because the State has no business in dictating an individual's attitude to risk.

172driver

19th Jan 2012, 10:52

@ Mechta: :D:D:D

@ sdbeach: agree 100%

I'm probably giving my age away here, but this thread reminds me of the debate if cars should have seat belts or not. Methinks that one's been settled a while ago....

What also seems to be forgotten here is that not everyone flies above endless green fields (read: UK, most of France) where you can easily put down. In many parts of the world all your superior training, airmanship, whatever is not going to save you, as there is nothing below you to safely land on. And no, you don't have to go to the Rockies or central Oz for that, the Alps, endless olive groves in Spain, boulder-strewn desert in Morocco, dense woods in Germany - they'll all do it for you.

None of the a/c I fly has BRS fitted, but given the option I'd take one any day. Call me what you may - if I can increase the safety of my flying, I damn well will.

Genghis the Engineer

19th Jan 2012, 11:29

Okay, here's a viewpoint for discussion:

- Safety net provided by a BRS, GOOD

- Safety net provided by greater currency, GOOD

- Safety net provided by limited instrument training, GOOD

- Avoidance of ever using those safety nets by good airmanship , VERY VERY GOOD

- Flying in probable icing conditions without anti-icing equipment, BAD

- Flying towards likely IMC conditions when not instrument qualified, BAD

- Relying on a BRS to get you out of trouble, so persevering into IMC/icing/low-level-over-unlandable-terrain, BAD AND STUPID

- Refusing to fly an aircraft without a BRS, UNNECESSARILY PARANOID

- Preferring to fly an aircraft with a BRS, FAIR ENOUGH

- Spending so much money on the aeroplane and equipment, you can't afford the time to know and stay current on the aeroplane, and flying skills in general SILLY

I'm happy to hang my hat on all of this; I do however think that I have read a lot of Cirrus accident reports that fall fairly into the "BAD AND STUPID" category I defined above.

This isn't a criticism of BRS, or of Cirrus. It is a criticism of some Cirrus pilots, a certain proportion of whom have definitely fallen into the SILLY category.

G

Pilot DAR

19th Jan 2012, 12:51

Genghis, I agree with you.

I have never flown a Cirrus, nor received the "sales pitch" on the BRS, but i can imagine a well meaning, enthusiastic sales person expounding the virtues of being able to drift down under a canopy if it all goes wrong. I'm sure this could have a large affect upon the decision making of a newer pilot, in a not good way.

so persevering into IMC/icing/low-level-over-unlandable-terrain

I have flown as a safety pilot with pilots new to their amphibian or float plane. "Let's go there for lunch!" they say, with "there" being across a rather large lake. What I have had to explain is that just because we're in a plane equipped with floats does not mean we can land wherever we choose (or chooses us) on the water. Land a C 185 into 3 foot waves, and you'll be lucky to have one float left floating to cling to, while your ELT and safety kit are in the plane at the bottom, and SAR has no idea where you are. We stay nearer to shore, and go around...

The fact that an aircraft has a "safety system" installed should really not in any way affect decision making as to what can be safely done in it. If people like the added sense of safety, okay, but it should not affect the choice to fly. If you would fly the BRS equipped plane, but not the unequipped one, you probably should really take a much closer look at the risks for that flight, and think about what else can be done to mitigate them, and then fly within the optimum conditions for deploying the 'chute for the whole flight!

Contacttower

19th Jan 2012, 13:20

Is there anywhere that offers training in an Ikarus C42 (the VLA version, not the microlight version) with a BRS near(ish) London (or of course a similar BRS equipped alternative that I am not familiar with)?

Coming back to original question...

I rather doubt it, I may be wrong but apart from the Cirrus you'll struggle to find many BRS equipped planes for training in the UK; please someone correct me if I'm wrong...

Genghis the Engineer

19th Jan 2012, 13:30

Coming back to original question...

I rather doubt it, I may be wrong but apart from the Cirrus you'll struggle to find many BRS equipped planes for training in the UK; please someone correct me if I'm wrong...

All Ikarus C42 VLAs in the UK are homebuilts, so can only be used for flying instruction of the sole owner.

There are lots of C42s in microlight schools, these are the type approved microlight version. Some of them I'm sure have BRS fitted, although probably not very many.

There are BRS mods available for lots of common light aeroplanes. The fact is, very few operators see this as a valuable addition, so very few few of these aeroplanes have BRS fitted. Also, it's a lot harder to get approval to fit these to a UK than a US aeroplane, and very few people in the UK have the ability to get mods approved.

G

Pilot DAR

19th Jan 2012, 13:56

so very few few of these aeroplanes have BRS fitted

When I received notification of an Airworthiness Directive which might be applicable to my C 150 (which always makes one shudder!) I was relieved to read that it was applicable only to BRS equipped C 150's, and that there are only 4 known to be so equipped in North America. (kinda makes me wonder why AD it, just contact those 4 owners directly!)

So that's about one in every 3500 C 150's in North America - not common

paulp

19th Jan 2012, 14:01

This isn't a criticism of BRS, or of Cirrus. It is a criticism of some Cirrus pilots, a certain proportion of whom have definitely fallen into the SILLY category.

Having looked at most Cirrus accidents and a lot of others too the thing that strikes me is the similarity of Cirrus accidents to those of other high performance planes. The silly and the stupid seem to be very well spread around the flying community. I sometimes teach a critical decision making class. One example I use is a Debonair accident from the 1960's. It was the Cirrus of its day. It gets loaded with the pilot, his wife, an in-law and several kids for a flight from the east coast of the US to the west coast. I show a picture of the plane including the interior to show how stupidly overloaded it was. In the end the plane ices up and crashes. For all of the idiocy all the pilot had to do was turn around when he encountered ice. When you compare Cirrus accidents to other planes be sure to compare to other high performance aircraft and not a C172. If you go to Flightware.com and look at the aircraft in the US ATC system you will see the large number of Cirrus aircraft being flown IFR. Currently there are 27 SR22's and one SR20. Compare that to 17 BE36, 6 BE35, 3 DA40, 2 DA42, and 20 C182. These numbers will vary a lot but having looked at them for several years now the thing that jumps out is that a lot of Cirrus aircraft are being flown in the IFR system compared to other makes.

patowalker

19th Jan 2012, 14:30

There are lots of C42s in microlight schools, these are the type approved microlight version. Some of them I'm sure have BRS fitted, although probably not very many.

There is a BRS equipped C42 in the microlight school at Deanland. As mentioned earlier, the parachute was added to benefit from an additional 11kg in crew or fuel weight, not for safety reasons.

sdbeach

19th Jan 2012, 16:21

I'm happy to hang my hat on all of this; I do however think that I have read a lot of Cirrus accident reports that fall fairly into the "BAD AND STUPID" category I defined above.
While I may be influenced by my Cirrus experience, I have come to realize that avoiding labels such as "pilot error" and "stupid" forces the discussion into more constructive areas of action. After I made that choice for myself, I began to realize that accident investigators also avoid those terms.

Heard the line "You can't fix stupid!"

So, as I got deeper into the accident reports and the underlying public information dockets, accidents that people called "stupid pilot tricks" or similar "pilot error" foibles revealed accident chains of inadequate decision-making or failing to mitigate risks.

Those you can fix.

Unfortunately, we don't have strong motivators for the average (or below average) pilot to fix them. No type ratings. Not much more than a flight review. Hmmm...

Cheers
Rick

SEP Flyer

19th Jan 2012, 17:13

172 Driver - None of the a/c I fly has BRS fitted, but given the option I'd take one any day. Call me what you may - if I can increase the safety of my flying, I damn well will.

I'll second that! :ok:

One point of interest is that those generally not in favour of fitting BRS seem to be high hour, experienced flyers. I would suggest that most private flyers do not have the hours or experience, or are able to fly as regularly as they would like - I'm certainly one - so the reassurance of a BRS would be a bit like having the instructor next to you. It gives you extra confidence. I don't think most private pilots would push their or their plane's boundaries any further with a BRS system. And I'm sure it would help many passengers be more relaxed as well!

Similarly, I don't need my GPS (I'm VFR only), after all I was trained to navigate without one, but I feel a lot safer and more confident with one. It makes my flying more enjoyable, and I'm sure safer.

Although the top of my wish list is the mandatory (retro)fitting of non icing carburettors as standard and so ending the dinosaur requirements of carb heat...that would surely reduce the seemingly high number of carb ice accidents at low level where BRS would not work anyway. But that's another discussion!

Pilot DAR

19th Jan 2012, 18:26

those generally not in favour of fitting BRS seem to be high hour, experienced flyers. I would suggest that most private flyers do not have the hours or experience, or are able to fly as regularly as they would like

A valid point about not flying regularly, however, to me it's the broader issue of competence in any given flying environment. If you're really relaxed in a given flying circumstance, you're probably "good", but verging on complacent. If you really know that you have no business in a given flying environment, get out, stay out, or go with competent mentoring. If you're in the middle, and the conditions appropriate, you should probably be going, but with caution. That's probably the safest kind of flying.

I get pointed toward a plane from time to time, with the instruction to go an fly it for whatever purpose. Sometimes it's a type I've never flown before. I take a breath, and remind myself of the test pilot's prayer: "Please keep me from buggering up!". Then I read the flight manual, and fly as though there's trouble around every corner. Then, when I'm done for the day, I get in my plane, and fly home, about as though it is my car.

I think that the "high hour experienced fliers" are not safer because of lots of hours, they're just more "at one" with the plane and the environment, and perhaps (though certainly not always!) relaxed so as not to rush into poor flying circumstances too quickly. If they're not in the poor circumstances, they're not having to get themselves back out.

I don't for a moment suggest that's there's a number where a pilot becomes "high time" or "safe", it's more of an attitude thing. But, were I to be the passenger to a pilot who felt that they "needed" a BRS, (or a number of other non standard safety items) to fly a reassuringly safe flight, I'd be worried. I'd rather that they feel on the edge, and say the test pilot's prayer to themselves, then fly with caution - it'll be fine....

Aphrican

19th Jan 2012, 18:39

Ceteris paribus, I would prefer a plane with BRS to one without it.

Unfortunately, having a BRS probably means that things don't remain the same after just a few hours for a low hours pilot like me.

The new equilibrium post BRS is probably more risky than the old equilibrium pre BRS.

007helicopter

19th Jan 2012, 22:02

I'm happy to hang my hat on all of this; I do however think that I have read a lot of Cirrus accident reports that fall fairly into the "BAD AND STUPID" category I defined above.

Genghis I have read every Cirrus fatal accident report and would actually say the "BAD AND STUPID" ratio appears to me broadly the same for other types.

I certainly prefer to have BRS at night and over any hostile terrain and to be completely honest I do now prefer to have it period just as I do prefer air bags and ABS in my car.

So if ever we do get to swap our hour and have any reason to need to land off airfield, sorry it will be a CAPS pull...

Genghis the Engineer

19th Jan 2012, 22:37

Genghis I have read every Cirrus fatal accident report and would actually say the "BAD AND STUPID" ratio appears to me broadly the same for other types.

I certainly prefer to have BRS at night and over any hostile terrain and to be completely honest I do now prefer to have it period just as I do prefer air bags and ABS in my car.

So if ever we do get to swap our hour and have any reason to need to land off airfield, sorry it will be a CAPS pull...

Fair enough, your aircraft after-all, but if you start flying towards icing conditions - I reserve the right to express some strong opinions before we get there ! In reality, the Cirrus is a beautiful fascinating aeroplane and I'm keen to have a go in it.

When I flew the Tucano (ejector seats) or Bulldog (personal parachutes and a jettisonable canopy) as observer on various flight trials, the Test Pilots were always clear than in the event of an engine failure, their first preference was to land in a field. Either way, the first thing we'd try and do is re-start the engine!

On the other hand, if you read the BRS website (or did, I've not looked for a few years) there always used to be various accounts of people who used BRS in the pre-Cirrus days as their route out from some perfectly recoverable situations. There will always be somebody who relies excessively upon the safety aids. I noticed in my own flying, when I used to do a lot more microlight flying than I do now, that I was far more likely to continue into marginal conditions when I had doors and windows on the aeroplane - as if that little bit of perspex would really make a blind bit of difference if I hit anything!

I hopefully will be in touch shortly - my beastie is about to come out of a bit of maintenance, and the weather seems to be occasionally quite useable lately.

Cheers,

G

Contacttower

19th Jan 2012, 23:40

There is a BRS equipped C42 in the microlight school at Deanland. As mentioned earlier, the parachute was added to benefit from an additional 11kg in crew or fuel weight, not for safety reasons.

How come one gets an extra 11kg if you fit the parachute?

patowalker

20th Jan 2012, 06:35

Sorry, it is about 7kgs. That is because the weight allowance is 22.5kg and the GRS Galaxy system for a C42 weights about 15kgs. On a school microlight, depending on the size of the instructor, it can make the difference between being able to accept or having to reject students of a certain weight.

A and C

20th Jan 2012, 06:50

Low time pilots who are not very current & BRS, you just got to love e'm. Great for business!

Tinstaafl

20th Jan 2012, 15:59

Sigh... lovely debate to have it summed up nicely as stating that safety innovations are not justified -- instead of saving yourself, you could invest in more training and useful load.

More training nearly always translates into a safer pilot, lowering risk for most or all aspects of a flight, and not just the limited flight envelope a BRS is certified for. And useful load doesn't necessarily mean more bags or bums. *Fuel* is useful load too.

sdbeach

20th Jan 2012, 23:20

More training nearly always translates into a safer pilot, lowering risk for most or all aspects of a flight, and not just the limited flight envelope a BRS is certified for. And useful load doesn't necessarily mean more bags or bums. *Fuel* is useful load too.
All good.

Denigrating the ballistic parachute by your earlier comment that "risk is not great enough to justify the cost" belittles the innovation.

Cirrus decided that you could not buy one without CAPS; no option. In the history of CAPS deployments, pilots found themselves in a wide variety of situations, well beyond the expected scenarios imagined by the innovators.

All too often, critics and skeptics trot out their hypotheses about other ways of handling those bad situations. Of course, one cannot prove those hypotheses because you were not there, you did not experience what that pilot experienced. Except, we now can interview the pilot and learn something from their decisions.

I put it to you, is living a sufficient reward for pulling the red parachute handle? So far, 100% of the people aboard Cirrus aircraft survived when the parachute was activated within design parameters. And 4 people died and 12 survived in 10 accidents when the parachute was activated too low or too fast.

Cheers
Rick

007helicopter

20th Jan 2012, 23:56

Fair enough, your aircraft after-all, but if you start flying towards icing conditions - I reserve the right to express some strong opinions before we get there ! In reality, the Cirrus is a beautiful fascinating aeroplane and I'm keen to have a go in it.

Genghis drop me pm with your location or come over to Rochester and we can do it, not a FIKI aircraft so promise I am ice adverse :ok:

N95GT goes in for annual 1st feb so after then will be likely March and happy to bank the return hour when ever convenient.

Pilot DAR

21st Jan 2012, 00:30

Cirrus decided that you could not buy one without CAPS; no option.

It is simply my guess that Cirrus did this because they suspected that most purchasers would not spend the extra, given the choice, and so for the few they sold, the cost would be disproportionately high.

I recall reading somewhere in this thread a cost of $1000 per year for the system (I have no other knowledge of the cost). For an average user this would equal around $10 per hour? To many, this would seem expensive, to others, not so much.But for those who choose to fly with the BRS, don't complain about the cost of flying being $10 per hour higher!

Personally, I would (and do) rather devote that expense to recurrent training, to develop my skills more broadly, and keep me out of trouble to begin with. As I have said, in all these years, I have never wanted to abandon the flight. Is there something different about flying these days, as opposed to the "old days", which makes abandoning the flight by pulling the red handle, more important or necessary now than before? Is training now less appropriate for teaching pilots to stay out of trouble in the first place?

peterh337

21st Jan 2012, 06:43

Is there something different about flying these days, as opposed to the "old days", which makes abandoning the flight by pulling the red handle, more important or necessary now than before? Is training now less appropriate for teaching pilots to stay out of trouble in the first place?

Very good questions...

I think what has mostly happened is that - using mining terminology - Cirrus have exposed a new stratum of customers. Look at their U.S. adverts, of years ago. Very aspirational, aimed at young men with money. These people have rarely previously featured in GA (any part of GA) which tends to be dominated by a rather different community ;)

Very few owners of traditional metal aircraft have sold up and bought a Cirrus. I do know of a few but none of them describe the move as significantly beneficial, which makes sense since an SR22 has no actual capability over a similarly equipped older type. And I would not swap my 2002 TB20GT for a brand new SR22, either.

I think a good part of the Cirrus marketing has been a con, however. The crude way they have removed the prop RPM lever which makes their pilots pay perhaps 5-10% more on fuel. The fixed gear which makes their pilots pay perhaps 10-20% more on fuel. All sold as "simplicity" but the RPM lever and retractable gear are non-issues in reality. I spend perhaps £200 on each Annual having my gear dismantled and greased properly; it is a fair point that most maintenance shops won't do that (they just drip some oil all over it) but that is a different argument to the one Cirrus put forward. Their insurance premiums finally put paid to the " simplicity" argument.

The BRS argument will run and run. I don't have a problem with it; in flying you should always have an escape route. The chute gives a good escape route for overflying bad terrain (forests, mountains) and layers of low cloud/fog, and protects from a catastrophic structural or control linkage failure (extremely rare as those are, unless you maintain your plane like you maintain your lawn mower). I do some flying where the escape routes are hardly great (http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/?action=view&current=Untitled-5.jpg) but the time windows are short. My gripe with the BRS is the loss of payload (50kg?) which is quite a lot; of the order of 25% in that class of aircraft and equivalent to one woman of just the right size (size 8) ;) And the other reality is that most of the BRS pulls to date have been in scenarios where a normal forced landing would have been possible had the pilot chosen to do that, and this demolishes the argument that the chute has saved lives. Some chute pulls have been in scenarios which are more tricky e.g. structural icing which arguably the pilot should not have got into (or escaped from pronto) but I see that more as an admission that the PPL and IR training is not good enough to enable people to actually go somewhere; also the high frequency of minor icing occurences in real flying makes the BRS chute a lousy solution to icing :)

Ultimately, Cirrus have done what nobody before or since has managed which is a revitalisation of the long distance VFR/IFR GA market and for that they should be admired. In the meantime, Socata folded up their piston production (for reasons one can only speculate on) which was a real loss.

But an SR22 has no real technical innovations, the efficiency gains of its sleek airframe are thrown away into dragging the fixed gear along, and I think it is a pity that they did not come out with something genuinely more advanced.

Cirrus crashes will also draw extra attention because the brand symbolises wealth and wealth is looked down on :)

Fuji Abound

21st Jan 2012, 09:02

Ultimately, Cirrus have done what nobody before or since has managed which is a revitalisation of the long distance VFR/IFR GA market and for that they should be admired. In the meantime, Socata folded up their piston production (for reasons one can only speculate on) which was a real loss.

I think that is right.

There will always be those who dont want to buy aircraft out of production, poorly supported by the manufacturer or of archane design. Its a reason why cirrus and diamond have sold so many aircraft.

In some ways forget the prop., the undercarriage and the brs as distractions because you are left with a modern design, that performs as well as almost any single, is comfortable and a delight to fly. As a tourer it really does everything well. It is a single for grown ups that want to go places in comfort and at a good speed who arent going to be too worried about using a little more fuel.

As to the chute its become a part of the real pilots dont use gps philosophy. Real pilots should be able to perform a forced landing if need arises, and should be able to navigate with pencil and paper. Well maybe they should. Howver i have pulled the lever on enough pilots to know that i wouldnt be assured of their forced landing skills. Dont think you are better than you are, i reckon unless you are practising a forced landing at least once a month you are not as good as you believe.

So the reason i posted in favour of cirrus was because you are buying a known package with no surprises. If you dont like the brs or single lever ops dont buy one. However i can tell you if you want a rock solid tourer that is really nice to fly with or without the autopilot, is comfortable, gives as good a ride in weather as any single i have flown (and better than some twins) and in my experience at least, with which very little goes wrong, then a cirrus should be on your shopping list.

At the very least fly one before you get involved in some of the distractions that are commonly heard.

007helicopter

21st Jan 2012, 09:30

And I would not swap my 2002 TB20GT for a brand new SR22, either.

Peter I think you should get some therapy for this thinking :E

Personally, I would (and do) rather devote that expense to recurrent training, to develop my skills more broadly, and keep me out of trouble to begin with. As I have said, in all these years, I have never wanted to abandon the flight. Is there something different about flying these days, as opposed to the "old days", which makes abandoning the flight by pulling the red handle, more important or necessary now than before? Is training now less appropriate for teaching pilots to stay out of trouble in the first place?

Pilot Dar I could not agree more that recurrent training is essential for safety whatever type is flown it should be factored in to the total cost of ownership. COPA offer possibly the most wide spread and established recurrent training programme's (the CPPP) of any type I know, I have been on 3 in 4 years and they are invaluable in my opinion, last over 3 days and you get to fly and be trained by some of the most experienced Cirrus Instructors in the world who are passionate about safety.

A big problem with the Cirrus is the vast majority of Pilots were trained to land in a field (including me) and not pull the chute, a criticism with hind site of my Cirrus transition training was not enough emphasis was put on the chute as an option.

Initially my thinking was to be fly the plane to ground, stay in control, don't get into trouble in the first place etc etc, over the last years my view point based attending training, observing and studying all Cirrus accident reports, watching other Cirrus Pilots die when they could have used the chute is that now every flight I brief myself on the CAPS option and mentally rehearse using it.

Last year (I stand to be corrected) I think there were around 9 Cirrus fatalities and 1 chute pull, in the heat of the moment my understanding is that pilots simply forget they have a chute, are in denial that it is the best option or just leave it to late.

In the simulator under pressure I certainly forgot it was even there, which was valuable training and a mistake I hope will not happen again if I am faced with that choice in the real world.

007helicopter

21st Jan 2012, 09:53

As to the chute its become a part of the real pilots dont use gps philosophy. Real pilots should be able to perform a forced landing if need arises, and should be able to navigate with pencil and paper. Well maybe they should. Howver i have pulled the lever on enough pilots to know that i wouldnt be assured of their forced landing skills. Dont think you are better than you are, i reckon unless you are practising a forced landing at least once a month you are not as good as you believe.

Fuji I agree with your view and to add I know a PFL and the real deal are 2 completely different things, a straight forward engine failure (which is mostly what we practice) is not generally what kills most Pilots (Cirrus or Otherwise) normally the chain of events building up or poor planning, Pilot error get us into trouble we simply can not cope with and become over whelmed with the speed things then happen and decision making skills deteriorate to often resulting in death.

When flying with my family, non pilot passengers I have categorically decided I would never attempt an off airfield landing, I do not like the unknown factors of the surface, ditches, wire, rocks etc and I would rather not risk there lives.

With 2 pilots or on my own if time permitted I would consider all options but I hope still err for the Chute even if the surface looked tempting.

So yes I admit I have become convinced it is a safer option than a forced landing and one I hope I will have the thinking power to correctly use should the time come to make that decision.

Genghis the Engineer

21st Jan 2012, 11:16

If landing in fields was that likely to damage your aeroplane, we'd have no glider fleet in the UK, it would all have been destroyed or become uninsurable years ago. The fact is that landing in a well judged field is not a drama, and de-rigging it, or even often flying it out (which I've done several times after precautionary microlight landings) once conditions have improved is perfectly feasible.

Equally, there are occasions where a field landing is not going to be enjoyable - much of the Yorkshire Dales, for example, where you have tiny steep fields surrounded by drystone walls.

So, there are five possible outcomes to an engine failure in a Cirrus, I'd venture, these are...

(1) Crash, having f***d the whole thing up
(2) CAPS pull, vertical descent, substantial aircraft damage, hopefully no or minor injuries
(3) Well flown PFL, extract aircraft from a field later
(4) Successfully restart the engine

I'd argue that a sensible Cirrus pilot, just like a sensible (e.g.) Tucano pilot wants to start at the bottom and work up, aiming never to reach (1).

So, let's say that you're at 3,000ft and something goes wrong with the engine. The electronics will presumably give a GPS position and details of the terrain below - so even if night or IMC you have good situational awareness - and odds are you're day VFR anyhow.

At which point surely the drill should be only a variation on conventional light aeroplane teaching, to whit...

(1) Fly the aeroplane
(2) Try and re-start (with appropriate RT / crew brief)
(3) If unable to re-start, aggressively position for the best possible field
(4) When, say, 500ft above minimum safe CAPS operation height make a decision - will this be an acceptable landing or not? If it will be, carry on, if it won't, position clear of stuff you don't want to descend into then pull the CAPS around 200ft above minimum safe operating height.

Surely only (4) should be any different for a CAPS/BRS/Ejector seat equipped flying machine, such as a Cirrus and pilots of ANYTHING should be following (1)-->(3).

Ditto inadvertent flight into IMC for a VFR pilot. As trained, try to either descend or turn out of it using the best situational awareness achievable with the instrument fit available (which in every SR22 I've ever seen is pretty damned good). If the pilot ceases to be able to control the aeroplane, or appears to be at unavoidable risk of CFIT, position where the moving map suggests there's probably something surviveable underneath, and pull the handle.

Ditto flight into icing - immediately try and climb/descend out of it and clear, again monitor SA, and if the situation seems unrecovereable, try and turn away from above/into-wind from connurbations and pull the handle before either LoC seems inavoidable, or the aeroplane is close to minimum safe chute height.

I've not done a Cirrus conversion course, but one hopes that this is what is being taught on those courses as emergency drills?

But there's much discussion here, and much in the various accident reports,that seems to suggest a mentality prevalent in parts of the Cirrus community that the universal response to most emergencies is:

(1) Something's gone wrong
(2) Pull Handle

Or am I missing something.

That said 007, I'll PM you!

G

chrisN

21st Jan 2012, 11:33

I wonder what training is given to power pilots for selection of fields for a forced landing. I was already an experienced glider pilot when I did my PPL, and had landed in more fields than any of my power instructors. I had almost no instruction at all in the power world, probably because of my gliding experience. I was able to just pick a field and set up a suitable approach without difficulty.

In gliding, the basic instruction given to would-be cross-country pilots is to be within reach of landable fields at 2000 feet, start choosing fields at 1500 feet, and at 1000 feet, forget about trying to stay up and concentrate on assessing the chosen field and setting up a good circuit for a stable approach. With the relatively low sink rate of a glider, compared with a powered aircraft with engine failure, there is ample time to do this. Hence there is rarely any damage to the glider in a field landing.

One reason for not picking the field until down to 1500 feet is that above that height it is difficult if not impossible to see slope, obstructions such as power cables, etc.

In a powered aircraft, with a much higher sink rate, and a considerable level of stress and workload combined after engine failure in cruise, the field choices are very limited, and I would expect a significantly higher proportion of at least some damage to the aircraft.

But you guys (some of you) on here are the experts on powered aircraft forced landings, so I defer to your greater experience of power PFLs.

Chris N

Genghis the Engineer

21st Jan 2012, 12:04

There are several subtle variations on PFL training powered, but they all broadly amount to the same thing. Here's a simplified version of what I practice and teach

- Engine's failed
- Establish best glide speed, point into a sensible area,
- If height permits, attempt a restart
- Pick a good field, well within gliding range, preferably somewhere between 45 degrees to the side of the nose, and behind me, preferably with other good fields around. Points of interest exactly as gliding - crop, slope, wind, obstructions, length
- Establish somewhere between downwind and base, note the vertical angle to an aiming point about 1/3 into the field
- Fly a constant aspect approach, tightening the turn if the aiming point goes up in the field of view, widening it if it goes down.

After that, it's all pretty much aircraft specific - speed, gear, carb heat, flaps, as required. Mayday and pax brief as time permits. Be prepared to switch fields if it's going wrong, if i doubt err on the side of going through the far hedge slow, rather than the near hedge fast.
G

paulp

21st Jan 2012, 13:06

How many gliders land at 60 kts? The Cirrus undercarriage is not very field friendly with its small tires and springy gear. Glide ratio and hence the ability to pick fields once low enough to have a look is much more limited.

With respect to the fuel issue, there is effectively a prop control at full throttle i.e. varying from 2500 to 2700 rpm is strictly prop control with the throttle already wide open. At less throttle it is correct that you have to accept what you get. BTW, this is a Continental design that Cirrus adopted and not really a Cirrus "innovation." For all of this lack of control and gear hanging down I get about the same fuel burn for a given speed as my friend's V-tail Bonanza. In addition I have a wider and more comfortable cockpit and a better ride both in terms of handling turbulence and in terms of Dutch roll.

Fuji Abound

21st Jan 2012, 14:43

peterh337

21st Jan 2012, 14:47

There has to be a big difference between a forced landing at 30kt and at 60kt - these representing the typical Vs of the two categories discussed here.

Even at the same MTOW that's a 4x difference in energy to be dissipated.

(1) Something's gone wrong
(2) Pull Handle

I think the current Cirrus-focused training is basically that i.e. you have it so use it.

The fact that most chute pulls to date appear to have been in situations which ought to have been recoverable conventionally will keep pilot forums busy for a long time :)

007helicopter

21st Jan 2012, 14:56

But there's much discussion here, and much in the various accident reports,that seems to suggest a mentality prevalent in parts of the Cirrus community that the universal response to most emergencies is:

(1) Something's gone wrong
(2) Pull Handle

Or am I missing something.

I am not aware of this as a universal response or seen any evidence of that in the Cirrus community, of course I hope most would try and solve the problem and avoid getting in it in the first place.

In fact in total there are very few CAPS pulls relative to the fleet hours, Far to many Cirrus Pilots have died where if only they had used CAPS they would be alive now to tell the tale.

The point is when those options are exhausted and I no longer have control of the aircraft rather than land in uncertain terrain at 60+ knots my preference is to avoid the risk and use CAPS

I would include loss of engine / power as having lost control of the aircraft and I personally do not feel that I am so competent as being able to guarantee with reasonable certainty where I am going to put it down.

In October I spent a week flying a Cirrus in the Rockies and would say most Pilots would agree it could be an advantage in this terrain, but When I look at fields in the UK when I am on the ground that looked viable from 1000 + ft, I often do not like what I see when I look at them on foot.

Also with the recent successful CAPS pull over water this will now be my default position and I will not even consider a conventional ditching.

So trying to relate this to the OP's question if you did could an airplane with BRS make sure your instructor is pro BRS and gives you adequate information and practice what you consider correct form you.

englishal

21st Jan 2012, 15:07

I think there are lots of myths and urban legend regarding the Cirrus....Many microlights have BRS systems and people don't knock these, and microlights are more dangerous than CofA aeroplanes for a start! Again though, in a microlight you can get away with stuff you can't get away in in a heavy aeroplane....like touching down in a field with a 100m landing roll.

When one takes into account that Cirrus's are typically flown by people who do more than just the £200 burger, in different conditions, then it is difficult to compare real accident rates to your average PA28 Warrior with a 160HP engine used by a flying club. I suppose you'd have to compare them to a Twin - and interestingly the Twin suffers a higher fatality rate than a Single, but is less likely to be involved in an accident. You get more CFITs in a twin than a single for example.

As the Cirrus is a desirable aeroplane, then if you can afford one, why not buy one as your first aeroplane?

007helicopter

21st Jan 2012, 15:10

The fact that most chute pulls to date appear to have been in situations which ought to have been recoverable conventionally will keep pilot forums busy for a long time

Peter for sure it gives us something to debate but totally disagree with this opinion, in fact this is an attitude which appears to prevent people pulling the chute, ie I should be good enough to avoid it and heroically put the aircraft and my passengers down in a filed,, I think this is generally a macho type opinion and the Cirrus chute is for wimps and those with more money than sense who can not be bothered to learn to fly the plane properly due to some glossy brochure I saw in a flying magazine.

Even at the same MTOW that's a 4x difference in energy to be dissipated. totally agree and this is a very good key point

This is also assuming the touch down is somewhere in the region of 60 knots and the Pilot under tremendous pressure and probably mentally over loaded does not stall first, come up short or long of the landing spot, land a LOT faster, cart wheel, hit a tree, fence, wires, ditch, rock etc

Genghis the Engineer

21st Jan 2012, 16:53

There's an interesting analysis of Cirrus accidents here (http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx)

The author, who seems to have done his homework, thinks that about 30% of Cirrus fatals could have been prevented by CAPS.

Which is interesting, as in my post #16, I said...

... And *maybe* in 30% of fatal accident scenarios, a BRS would have had value. That's 30% of a (statistically) 1 in 70,000 hrs event.

So from two perspectives - my very cynical one, and the CAOPA's very partisan one, you have the same figure.

CAPS, used properly, should prevent about 30% of fatal accidents.

So the choice to fit a BRS, or to rent or buy a BRS equipped aircraft, or not - and the trade off (assuming like most of us your financial resources are limited) should be considered in that light, versus any other safety investment they might be considering.

With a reasonable clear figure there, and a reasonably well established set of figures for fatal accident rates, anybody can then make an informed and sensible decision about whether it's important to them or not.

G

N.B. If the Cirrus has small wheels and an allegedly flimsy undercarriage, does anybody nonetheless really believe that a conventional landing where the undercarriage *might* fail due to rough ground is going to be most times less pleasant than a vertical descend under a parachute a rate almost certainly to destroy the undercarriage, but substantial loads on the occupants spines. Sorry, no. A CAPS descent will certainly be better than a forwards landing into mature forest or ocean, but where there's something resembling a flattish field, I'd take that every time.

peterh337

21st Jan 2012, 17:15

Peter for sure it gives us something to debate but totally disagree with this opinion,

Glad to give people something to debate :)

in fact this is an attitude which appears to prevent people pulling the chute

You may well be right but is there evidence for that?

Re flimsy landing gear, I don't think an SR22 landing gear is particularly flimsy. It is fairly tightly cowled and I think an SR22 operated from grass is going to suffer at least as much as a traditional cowled-wheel PA28 with muck getting collected up there. But it should be fine for a forced landing in a field.

IIRC, the original position was that every BRS landing would write off the airframe, but they have salvaged some of them. (I just hope they didn't pass on the avionics to some sucker, after processing them through an avionics bench test :ugh: ).

That link is interesting.

When you compare the successful CAPS pulls to the 41 fatal accident scenarios, you find remarkable similarities.
My estimation is that 30% of the fatal accidents had a high probability of success if the pilot had pulled the CAPS handle; overall 23 of 41, or 56%, had a high-to-middle level probability of success:
• VFR-into-IMC (7) • High altitude upsets (4)
• Pilot disorientation (5) • Mechanical problems (2)
• Low altitude loss of control (5)

Of those categories listed, #1 and #3 are very similar - unless one is suggesting that a pilot who is "disoriented" in VMC should pull the chute :ugh:

I bet very few non-IR pilots are going to pull the chute upon simply flying into IMC, when (a) they are supposed to have had training to do something like a 180 and (b) they are likely to be close to uninsurable afterwards. Whatever the best advice is, there is a really powerful human factors issue there.

Mech problems is a genuine reason, though that chute pull where the aileron came off would not be a good reason to pull the chute if the aircraft was controllable (as it should be, one would hope).

Low altitude loss of control is no good for BRS so I don't know why the author suggests these could have been saved. This (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf) is possibly of interest.

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 17:27

There's an interesting analysis of Cirrus accidents here (http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx)
Glad to see this come up. Good searching.

BTW, I'm the author of that article, written three years ago.

My updated assessment is now that 105 people have died in 52 fatal Cirrus accidents where the pilots faced a decision similar to a survivable Cirrus parachute save. In other words, the percentage of potentially survivable fatal accidents has gone up from 30% to 60% since 2008. Part of that is that the number of fatal accidents has doubled, part is that more scenarios were survivable with a CAPS pull, but more importantly, more Cirrus pilots are flying without the Cirrus-approved transition training.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 17:29

CAPS, used properly, should prevent about 30% of fatal accidents.
I would not say it that way. I would say that CAPS could prevent fatalities.

And it has done so in rather remarkable fashion.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 17:35

IIRC, the original position was that every BRS landing would write off the airframe, but they have salvaged some of them. (I just hope they didn't pass on the avionics to some sucker, after processing them through an avionics bench test :ugh: ).
At the outset, Cirrus did not expect to see many aircraft returned to flight status after a parachute pull. So, after the very first parachute deployment, N1223S, they bought the salvage to see what happened. Then they hired a talented mechanic to repair the plane. Cirrus provided the engineering required for structural repairs and the plane flew again and was sold to a new owner.

Just last week, a COPA member posted that they had returned a plane to flight status after a CAPS pull, where the plane was suspended in trees 25 feet above the ground. Interesting extraction challenge, eh? Avionics were undamaged. After structural repairs and repainting the plane, mounting the 4-blade MT prop, the plane is absolutely gorgeous. And it passed all engineering and airworthiness inspections.

I don't have a confirmed list, but it appears that about 12 of 32 airplanes involved with parachute deployments have been repaired and flew again.

Cheers
Rick

007helicopter

21st Jan 2012, 17:39

Rick Beach who is the poster above did a presentation at last years Cirrus Migration, it is an hour long but worth a watch if you want to more about BRS or if you are a Cirrus Pilot I would say essential to watch

CAPS... CONSIDER - M9 Presentation on Vimeo

This hour-long presentation on the use of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) describes the actual deployment history over the past 10 years and highlights several scenarios where some pilots pulled the red handle and lived while other pilots died in fatal accidents. The latter part of the presentation motivates changes to the way Cirrus pilots consider the use of CAPS in emergency and abnormal situations.

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 17:41

Mech problems is a genuine reason, though that chute pull where the aileron came off would not be a good reason to pull the chute if the aircraft was controllable (as it should be, one would hope).
Should be, eh? Got any facts?

Actually, in that CAPS pull, the aileron unhinged and didn't come off completely. So, the intrepid pilot is flying along with a new source of drag that requires almost full deflection to keep wings level. Cause: mechanic had removed the aileron for other work and forgot during reinstallation to safety wire the nuts on the aileron hinges, then one nut worked loose leaving the aileron flapping from the other hinge.

The pilot determined that he could not assure control during maneuvers to land, so he gained some altitude and activated CAPS over a golf course and landed in shrubs. Recently, I met one of the golfers who rushed up, inquired if the pilot was okay, and assured things were under control -- played on! That golfer is now a Cirrus owner!

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 17:54

Low altitude loss of control is no good for BRS so I don't know why the author suggests these could have been saved. This (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf) is possibly of interest.
As the author, let me suggest why.

One's low altitude is not necessarily the same as someone else's low altitude.

In the analysis of Cirrus accidents that might be candidates for survivable CAPS saves, recall that the design parameters were 133 knots airspeed and 920 feet loss of altitude in a 1-1/2 turn spin and 400 feet in level flight.

So, low altitude loss of control above 400 or 920 feet is a candidate for deploying CAPS. Given that the FAA requirement for flight over congested areas is above 1000 feet, most of these accident flights would be considered low altitude between 1000 and 2000 feet, perhaps even below 3000 feet.

In my analysis, I discount the possibility of a CAPS pull for pilots in CFIT accidents who were likely unaware of the risks.

Nonetheless, several pilots were flying between 1000 and 2000 feet and persisted in maneuvers until they lost control and crashed. Other pilots in similar circumstances pulled handle and survived. It's those low-altitude fatal accidents that I consider had a good, but not great, chance of surviving.

Unfortunately, investigations and discussions about the pilots involved in several Cirrus accidents reveal indications that they were not trained to consider CAPS. In a couple of cases, the pilots were known to hold similar skeptical attitudes found in these discussions. They died. With a perfectly functioning parachute behind them that activated upon ground impact. Only 8 seconds earlier had they pulled the red handle then they might have survived.

That's a tragedy that does not need to happen again. Hence my diligence in refuting the misinformation and outright distortions with facts.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

21st Jan 2012, 18:12

in fact this is an attitude which appears to prevent people pulling the chute You may well be right but is there evidence for that?
Yes.

Three pieces to consider.

1) Palm Bay, FL, a fatal Cirrus accident when the pilot reported loss of engine power and diverted to an open area, one of those undeveloped housing tracts that have roads but no buildings. The pilot stated three times on the radio that he was doing an "off site landing" with apparently increasing stress in his voice. Upon landing in the tall grass, one wing tip hit the ground and caused the plane to cartwheel violently. The pilot and his wife were seriously injured and died overnight in hospital; their neice walked out of the rear seat. This pilot was known to previously own a competitor's plane, whose sales people are on record as claiming that the parachute was a marketing gimmick, and he was heard to disdain the COPA mantra of Pull Early, Pull Often as a way to encourage consideration of using the parachute. Classic off-airport landing scenario that turned fatal, but for the pilot's attitude preventing a survivable CAPS pull.

2) Morton, WA, a fatal Cirrus accident in which a mechanic failed to tighten a cap on the fuel distribution system causing fuel exhaustion. The pilot declared an emergency and diverted to a small mountain airport, couldn't reach it and diverted towards an open field, couldn't reach it and stretched the glide, hit trees and impacted at 60 knots nose first. Pilot died and passenger was hospitalized for several weeks. Scuttlebutt was that the pilot's instructor was not a fan of the parachute and did not encourage its consideration. Classic off-airport landing scenario that turned fatal, but for the pilot's lack of consideration to abandon the power-off glide preventing a survivable CAPS pull.

3) Numerous flight instructors at Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program report that they encounter Cirrus pilots who repeat the POH guidance that clearly states that using CAPS could cause death or serious injury, consequently they have decided not to rely upon CAPS for emergency procedures. When the instructors recount the numerous survivable scenarios and emphasize the CAPS...CONSIDER step in all emergency procedures, then they see these pilots change their appreciation for the value and utility of CAPS.

Cheers
Rick

abgd

21st Jan 2012, 22:02

Hmm... For the sake of argument:

-A human life is generally reckoned to be worth about £2,000,000.
-An average airframe is worth about £200,000.
-After an engine failure your chances of surviving a forced landing are 8/10.
-After pulling the chute your chances of surviving are 9/10.
-2 POB
-The aeroplane is completely written off after every chute deployment. It is undamaged after every survivable landing.

An economist would pull the chute every time the engine stopped (10 pulls cost £6 million; ten forced landings cost over £8 million).

Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.

I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.

The other idea I often wonder about is how long it will be before we have a 'sentinel' to look after BRS deployment. Using GPS, accelerometers and a terrain database, it could work out whenever you were about to spin into the ground, or fly into terrain, then give you (say) a 5 second warning to do something about it or cancel the deployment.

chrisN

21st Jan 2012, 22:17

I do not dispute that most powered aircraft have more energy to dissipate in a field landing than most gliders, but not usually 4 times. My glider stall speed, flaps down, is about 40 knots if I carry no water ballast (few field landing have that extra mass, but some do – e.g. brought down by rain/sink too fast to dump ballast).

My recommended approach speed is 50 knots (no wind) to 55 or more depending on wind strength.

My first private (shared) glider had stall about 25 knots (Olympia 2B), second about 33 knots (Ka6E). Others vary anywhere within that range, and a few even higher.

-------
I have previously posted that I would have a BRS if available for my glider, because mobility (medical cause) issues prevent probably use of my personal parachute. No scientific analysis of glider bale-outs, but anecdotal evidence (including Germany where they had far more glider parachute deployments) suggests that below 1000 feet, success is unlikely. Above 2000 feet, survival is almost always achieved. Roughly linear relationship from 0 to 100 percent between 1k and 2k feet.

If BRS is saving people a bit below 1000, as well as people like me who cannot get out in time for a personal chute to save them, it is an added benefit.

Unfortunately, I can’t have one in my glider. And the likeliest scenario for me to use it would be after a collision with a non-Flarm, non-transponder (PCAS detected) flying machine that my imperfect eyeball did not see in time. Just like the 6 people who died in 5 glider/GA collisions 1970-2009. Not many, but would have been nice to save them.

And a lot more died in GA/GA collisions. But you all know that, and most think it infinitesimally low so take no notice.

Chris N.

sdbeach

22nd Jan 2012, 01:38

Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.

I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.
Generous assumption. Insurance companies would love you if it were true.

So, I've asked several insurance underwriters -- what would you say to a Cirrus pilot if they were considering pulling the parachute red handle?

Jim Anderson, VP of Starr Aviation Insurance and a Cirrus SR20 owner, stated unequivocally "Pull the CAPS handle! We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate!"

Others reminded me that often their most expensive claims are due to medical expenses. Factor that into your argument.

Cheers
Rick

peterh337

22nd Jan 2012, 07:49

But, SDbeach, you are in the USA.

Here, the market is much smaller (the total number of Cirruses is ~ 200 in all of Europe; perhaps 50-70 in the UK) and the insurers are already taking a hard line on what they perceive as pilots pulling the chute too readily.

We also have the National Health Service which, despite many many failings, does deliver competent emergency treatment, and that part is free (well, the average taxpayer pays about £1500/year towards it :) ).

Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies. Not long ago, the insurer for one UK Cirrus owner/group put up the deductible from ~ £3000 to £15000, after a well publicised chute pull (by somebody else) which was followed by the inevitable large insurance claim.

This is the other side of this debate. I know that "the proper attitude" in aviation is that safety, human life, etc, etc, always comes first [at this point one usually inserts the obligatory CAA safety sense leaflet editor approved aviation proverbs, like it is better being down and wishing you were up than being up and wishing you were down, and - this is a popular one on US pilot forums - the moment you have an emergency your plane is no longer owned by you and is owned by the insurance company, etc] but the reality seems to be that if you pull the chute in circumstances which were clearly favourable for a forced landing (lots of fields around, etc) you will find insurance a bit hard to find afterwards. That's probably OK if you are just renting, but few Cirrus pilots here are pure renters. Similarly, if you ice up at FL200 over mountains, stall, spin, and come down under the chute and then say you can't remember anything because of hypoxia, any insurer who knows the front end of a plane from the back end will have a bit of a view on it :)

The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.

I don't expect this debate will ever come anywhere near resolution. But if I had an engine failure in an SR22 I owned, and I saw loads of fields below, I would land in one of them. For ditching, forests, mountains, over fog/etc, I would use the chute.

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Jan 2012, 08:35

The envelope for safe ejection in an ejector seat equipped aeroplane is also complex. For example, even a zero-zero seat is marginal stationary on the ground, whilst an old technology 0-90/Mk.4 seat which wouldn't give a survivable ejection under those circumstances, should be survivable on the runway at 100kn.

Neither would probably give a survivable ejection in a high rate of descent at low speed and a couple of hundred seat, either might - even inverted - at the same height witha 2000fpm climb.

I am quite sure that you are right SD that the specialist Cirrus training is important - this is a complex (small "c") aeroplane which requires detailed knowledge and trained observence of good practice.

However, I also suspect strongly that even amongst those who have accepted this appropriate training, a lot of Cirrus pilots simply aren't maintaining enough currency, or have good enough basic airmanship skills, so they rely on the CAPS.

Of course, there are poor pilots in other aeroplanes as well - but I suspect in many cases they aren't relying upon the emotional crutch of the CAPS system to let them plough on any any pilot with a grain of common sense would not.

G

007helicopter

22nd Jan 2012, 10:06

However, I also suspect strongly that even amongst those who have accepted this appropriate training, a lot of Cirrus pilots simply aren't maintaining enough currency, or have good enough basic airmanship skills, so they rely on the CAPS.

This is a good point, the cirrus owners that attend regular CPPP training, are active on COPA, who have recurrent training including in the sim are categorically less likely to have a fatal accident or get into trouble in the first place, I am sure RIck will have some numbers.

I also think / guess that the above group would be more likely to consider and use the Chute rather than land in an unknown field, would you agree Rick?

Then there is perhaps a significant amount of Cirrus pilots who for whatever reason do not want, do not feel need or can not afford a level of training in type, I believe this group is statistically at a higher risk of a fatality and also less likely to consider the use of the Chute, or use it when the chips are down, although they may well factor it in as added security or fail safe options in there minds.

007helicopter

22nd Jan 2012, 10:14

I don't expect this debate will ever come anywhere near resolution. But if I had an engine failure in an SR22 I owned, and I saw loads of fields below, I would land in one of them. For ditching, forests, mountains, over fog/etc, I would use the chute.

Peter i would say this was exactly my thinking when deciding I wanted to fly Cirrus (as well as modern, fast, comfortable etc) it is only over the last 4 years that my view has steadily changed towards CAPS being my first consideration for an off field landing and make sure I am keeping that option wide open and within tolerances of operation while I then consider other forced landing options, and as I said earlier if a forced landing is the only option then if I have family or non pilots on board who do not really understand the risks then I will categorically use the Chute, simply the more experienced I get the less I like my odds at 60 kts+ in an unknown field and when you get close enough to actually properly access the condition then the Chute option has long gone.

I respect all others opinions but I think it is hard to really form an opinion until you have had maybe xxx hundred hours with CAPS to compare with your previous experience and thinking, you never know you may even form an alternative opinion.

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Jan 2012, 11:28

A tweak of 007's post, in the spirit of fair play

This is a good point, the aircraft owners that attend regular refresher training, are active in a flying organisation, who have recurrent training including in the sim are categorically less likely to have a fatal accident or get into trouble in the first place, I am sure RIck will have some numbers.

...

Then there is perhaps a significant amount of aeroplane pilots who for whatever reason do not want, do not feel need or can not afford a level of training in type, I believe this group is statistically at a higher risk of a fatality and also less likely to consider the use of trained emergency procedures such as PFLs, pan calls, precautionary landings, or use emergency procedures when the chips are down, although they may well factor their availability in as added security or fail safe options in there minds.

G

paulp

22nd Jan 2012, 13:15

The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.

Really? I know of several I would put into this class but a lot more that I wouldn't. I can cite many with an accident chain that could have been broken elsewhere but isn't that the case on most accidents? The penalty for one mistake shouldn't be death.

Most Cirrus pilots I have met seem unaffected by BRS in deciding to make a flight. I am more the exception. I admit that I now fly direct at night rather than following roads I can see. I also fly over low IFR and over inhospitable terrain. If you avoid flying with those conditions then feel free to throw stones. if you fly IFR over ceilings less than several thousand feet and do it without BRS then don't knock me for doing the same and feeling better having BRS. BTW, I have flown IFR without BRS and have no problem doing so. It is a risk I am willing to accept. I just feel better with the extra out.

The accident history of the SR22 is not out of line with planes of similar mission. What I have seen is a group of pilots who are more interested in getting to the golf course than in flying itself. They are often not members of COPA. This seems less about Cirrus marketing than about pilots who want the latest and best go anywhere (in their eyes) plane. They show up as the VFR pilots who flew into IMC. Nothing new here. Go back 30 years and the plane will be different but there will be a similar group of pilots.

COPA members have a much lower fatality rate. Whether that is because COPA promotes safe flight or because more safety minded pilots are attracted to COPA I don't know. Rick has the numbers.