PDA

View Full Version : BRS in a twin


vjmehra
21st Jun 2012, 00:06
Largely because I'm still up, I got thinking, is this likely to happen...

Would there be a market for this, after all surely this would then kill the debate, what would you rather have a BRS or an extra engine when flying over mountains or water?

Pilot DAR
21st Jun 2012, 01:22
Well, having just spent a good part of the day flight testing a very nice twin with one engine shut down and feathered, I'm thinking the extra engine would be far superior!

As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine myself ever wanting a BRS on an aircraft I am to fly, as long as I am able to mitigate the associated safety factors!

I can imagine some non pilot "spouses" liking the BRS idea, and if that is the go/no go factor that keeps a couple flying happily together, then I do see the value in that if they do.... but not for me....

vjmehra
21st Jun 2012, 01:31
Yep, that is largely the case with me, the parachute re-assures her!

Out of curiosity though why would you not want a BRS system?

I can understand why you may not wish to use one and would prefer more traditional methods of getting back to the ground, in the event of engine failiure's etc, but if its a free option, why would you not have one installed?

AdamFrisch
21st Jun 2012, 02:22
You know what? A twin amphibian with BRS would suit me just fine. Then I'd launch over the Atlantic/Pacific without a second thought.

carlmeek
21st Jun 2012, 06:55
I'd have a second engine any day, but they are to achieve different things. I don't think a pilot will pull a BRS unless the wings fall off (seen that vid?!)

For most BRS flying pilots I know the BRS lever is briefed to the passenger for pilot incapacitation.

Might be handy on a twin if the fuel runs dry or pilot collapses. I wonder if tecnam type light twins could have it?

Pace
21st Jun 2012, 06:59
BRS in a twin?? There would be little benefit and more weight as the shute would have to be bigger.
More weight means less single engine climb performance so the only benefit would be single pilot incapacitation and maybe structural damage.
I believe the Cirrus uses the undercarriage as an inherent part of energy absorbing structure and landing on water with no forward motion can lead to broken backs.
So not sure I would use one with an engine failure over sea.

Pace

BackPacker
21st Jun 2012, 07:37
I believe the Cirrus uses the undercarriage as an inherent part of energy absorbing structure

True. And guess what... A twin typically has a retractable undercarriage.

So it's not just a matter of adding the BRS (in itself quite a complex undertaking) but you also need to redesign the undercarriage so that it deploys automatically upon BRS deployment (and how do you do that in a dual engine failure with possibly no hydraulics available?), and that it can handle its part of the vertical impact load.

So in theory it may sound like a good idea but there are some construction details and weight penalties that will make it very hard to implement.

Ballywalter Flyer
21st Jun 2012, 08:07
We are all trained that should the engine quit on us (single engine) to look for a suitable landing site. I know most pilots (me included) will keep an eye out for suitable sites as part of their en-route checks.

The only time I could see a BRS system being effective (apart from structural failure) would be in the even of an engine failure over mountainous terrain where no safe landing site would be available. Of course an extra engine would help to clear terrain.

Pace
21st Jun 2012, 08:24
In the case of the SEP Cirrus the chute has saved lives over 25 now I believe.
A pilot taking his precious cargo ie his family on trips must worry about what would happen to them if anything happened to him.
Briefing them in the use of a chute must take a certain worry away.
Midairs? structural damage loss of control?

Then we get into areas where the chute probably creates the situation where the chute is deployed by adding overconfidence to press on in weather not suited to the pilot or aircraft.

Icing springs to mind as does flying into bad weather in IMC and loss of control!
Undertaking night trips which caution would normally stop you doing?
It would be interesting to have a breakdown of reasons for deploying the chute to know if the overconfidence in having the chute created the breeding ground for having to use it?

Pace

1800ed
21st Jun 2012, 10:06
I believe that the seats in a Cirrus have some form of impact attenuation device within them too, so it's not all in the undercarriage.

vjmehra
21st Jun 2012, 12:16
An interesting (but short article on Cirrus pulls here):

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) pull #32: Splashdown in the Bahamas - Golf Hotel Whiskey (http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/cirrus-airframe-parachute-system-caps-pull-32-splashdown-in-the-bahamas/)

Some interesting points made so far though, especially about undercarriage, although that got me thinking, isn't the Cabri G2 Helicopter supposodly one of the most 'crashworthy' cockpits around? Could this sort of design be used on fixed wing craft (I don't know the design details, so maybe the answer is no).

Also interesting point on Tecnams, this whole thread was started as I had the exact same thought, what if they fit a BRS to the P2006t...

007helicopter
21st Jun 2012, 19:11
As a Cirrus owner and pilot I would generally use the CAPS in virtually all situations that required an off airport landing due to engine failure or loss of control etc.

This was not my original opinion when I first purchased a Cirrus and it took several years to change my opinion from what I was originally trained to do and often practiced (ie a PFL)

Having read more or less all the Cirrus Fatality reports and also all the CAPS reports my opinion now for me is that I have tried to re programme myself to accept what is likely to be the safest outcome for me and any Pax.

I fully understand the arguments for and against and if anyone has time or inclination this one hour presentation sums up the arguments for in a way I never could and I try and watch it a few times a year to remind myself.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/593875.aspx

In a twin I accept it is a different argument but I see plenty of fatalities in twins where one engine failed, they seem like a real handful.

007helicopter
21st Jun 2012, 19:20
It would be interesting to have a breakdown of reasons for deploying the chute to know if the overconfidence in having the chute created the breeding ground for having to use it?

Pace I do not disagree the Chute in some cases must create in some Pilots to accept a higher degree of risk and yes I must confess to being one of them.

For example I like flying in Mountain areas, would I do it in a SEP without a chute, maybe, but I do now feel a lot more comfortable with a Chute and therefore do it more. But do not see anything wrong with this.

Cobalt
21st Jun 2012, 19:43
The second engine only helps in the case of a single engine failure. The parachute helps in case of

mid-air collision (well, most of them)
loss of control (if not too extreme / too low)
structural failure
dual engine failure (e.g. fuel starvation, fuel icing) and no landable terrain
severe icing encounters (boots have given up, freezing level on the deck)
engine failure over mountains with mountain tops above SE ceiling
The Cirrus has the parachute primarily because the co-founder of Cirrus, Alan Klapmeier, had a mid-air collision where the other aircraft crashed and the pilot died; he himself barely made it to the ground with 3ft of his wing missing.

The case for a parachute in a light twin is almost as strong as in a light single - but the market will be much smaller.

007helicopter
21st Jun 2012, 19:59
So not sure I would use one with an engine failure over sea.

I would 100%, no other decision personally.

The Damage your back theory is not factual and a bit of an OWT

Benefits:

Time to prepare
Unlikely to flip over
Not hitting a wave at 60+ knots
Gives notice to boats (loud bang)
Gives visual to search and rescue, ie large orange parachute.

There may be disadvantages but I am not sure of them.

Relative to the thread in a twin of course you could carry on with single engine failure which would be a massive advantage.

I do quite regular sea crossings and remind myself each time this is what I will do.

Cobalt
21st Jun 2012, 21:12
007helicopter, BRS over water is also what the POH says. It also recommends using the BRS over un-landable terrain, at night etc, but recommends a forced landing for engine failure over hospitable terrain.

You also write you would use it in case of engine failure over green pastures - do I understand you correctly? Why is that? Now if you decide on the way down the approach to the field is not going well, fine, but if you glide nicely, why not land?

peterh337
21st Jun 2012, 21:22
I am sure the "rep" from the Cirrus owners group (USA) will be along in a moment....

007helicopter
21st Jun 2012, 22:48
You also write you would use it in case of engine failure over green pastures - do I understand you correctly? Why is that? Now if you decide on the way down the approach to the field is not going well, fine, but if you glide nicely, why not land?

because imho what looks nice field at 1000ft can be a different story when inspected from the ground and the dangers of coming up short, hitting wires, tree stumps, ditches, gradients, water logged, rocks etc.

The Cirrus would be a worse aircraft to land in a field compared to say a Robin, due to its smaller wheels and relatively higher stall speed, 60 knots or so is a lot of energy to hit something or cart wheel.

Many people have successfully forced landed Cirrus just like any other aircraft but a reasonable percentage have failed with fatal consequences and they had a perfectly good chute that for ever reason they chose not to pull.

I appreciate this view may differ from 95% + of other readers and each to their own.

As I said my view has changed from thinking I would only use in the event of mid air or catastrophic failure etc to a serious consideration in the event of an off airfiled landing for whatever reason.

This thinking does take a certain change of attitude.

flybymike
21st Jun 2012, 23:04
You also write you would use it in case of engine failure over green pastures - do I understand you correctly? Why is that? Now if you decide on the way down the approach to the field is not going well, fine, but if you glide nicely, why not land?

Because you will almost certainly be at too low a level to deploy the chute by the time you have decided you need it.

abgd
21st Jun 2012, 23:37
The other difference over the sea is that your aircraft is likely to be a write-off whether you fly or go down by 'chute, whereas at least if you're overhead a green field you may be able to keep the aircraft intact.

Pilot DAR
22nd Jun 2012, 10:46
This discussion has naturally followed the path of highlighting the differing pilot preferences with respect to flying or riding to the ground following an "emergency". Those who would choose to have a parachute available are entitled to their opinion, though I do not share it.

As I think back over 35 years and 6400 hours of flying, I do not every recall a situation when I would have wanted to have a parachute available. When I flew jumpers, I was required to wear one, but only because of the risk of my being flung out of the aircraft's open door. I was happy to trust the seatbelt, they insisted on more protection.

A number of valid points have been made about the landing gear and general arrangement of the airframe being different in twins so as to loose some of the occupant protection characteristics common to BRS equipped types. Add to that the cost (both initial, and on going maintenance) of the system, and carrying that weight, and most pilots would shy away. Yes, a few conditions mentioned, like a forced landing into rugged terrain make the parachute attractive, but a pilot can choose to not fly there too!

Happily, pilots are not demanding en-mass, the provision of parachutes, so obviously there is a very low perceived risk of needing it, and I support that view...

peterh337
22nd Jun 2012, 11:03
There are certainly times when I would pull a chute

1 - over water
2 - over a forest
3 - over a solid cloud layer, believed to have a low bottom
4 - over the middle of the Pyrenees :)
5 - severe icing with no "descent to warm air" escape route, due to terrain

Except for 1. (which has a viable escape route: a life raft) one spends relatively little time in these places, without being able to glide somewhere.

In the context of a twin, you have the SE ceiling, which on most light twins is at a level which would suprise most people... if they want to e.g. cross mountains at FL180. Obviously the glide ratio is a lot better even then than the -1000fpm you can expect in the typical SE but there might be scenarios where a chute might be pulled. Especially given that twins have no max Vs figure for certification (60kt for SE).

OTOH ISTM that most twins that come down have either empty tanks, or the (multiple) tanks have been mismanaged, and carrying a 50-100kg BRS chute to cover that is not really good risk management :)

Cobalt
22nd Jun 2012, 12:43
Happily, pilots are not demanding en-mass, the provision of parachutes, so obviously there is a very low perceived risk of needing it, and I support that view...

At the higher end of the piston single Market they do - the sr22tn outsells the corvalis 400 by an extreme margin, not all can be explained by price alone.

In any other class this is a moot point as the pilots can demand all day, there just aren't any twins or turboprops with chutes - although, intersting enough, the turboprop kitplane single Epic has one.

If I am ever in a position to spend half a million on an aircraft, and it is a 20 grand option, I would buy the chute even if it had four engines.

If I had that money and had to choose between the corvalis 400 and the sr22t, I would probably go for the sr22, although the corvalis is a better aircraft (if you have 800m runway). If I had the choice between two new twins, it would be similar for me.

Only when you enter cas-only, twin-turboprop or better operations it stops to make sense.

Pilot DAR
22nd Jun 2012, 13:00
I know nothing of the sales of the SR22 or Corvalis, but I would be surprised to find that the availability of a parachute is a large factor in the purchase choice. But I could be wrong. Like other things in our society, people are being offered "more protection" with new systems and products on a regular basis. Some people find security in knowing that these are available. Some pilots will choose to carry such systems and products for every flight, accepting the weight and cost penalties in doing so. That is their choice, and I hope that they feel suitably secure, and don't complain about the cost.

I have found comfort over all these years of flying, considering the risks of flying, and preparing appropriately. These preparations might include: G meter, life jacket, floater/immersion suit, raft, parachute, night vision, survival kit, winter wear, extra GPU battery, extra fuel, or a second engine or amphibian (requires different plane). I choose the ones I need for a particular flight, I don't carry all of them for every flight. The odd time when up, I consider that I could have a more appropriate choice conditions considered, so I mitigate in other ways to keep things safe. Generally this is the choice to fly around an in hospidible feature, rather than over it!

peterh337
22nd Jun 2012, 13:35
I think the principal US SR22 market segment is very appreciative of the chute.

Less so among experienced pilots who understand the technology and where the technology is strong and where it is weak, but that isn't the main SR22 market.

Pace
22nd Jun 2012, 13:36
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance if it has such good safety benefits? other than the point that if you pull the chute you write off the airframe!

Down side is that flying the cirrus will give pilots false security and put them in situations where caution would not normally let them go.
That in itself will create chute situations.

The only positive side of the chute would be a midair or pilot incapacitation where a family well versed in its use could land back in relatively one piece.

Pace

peterh337
22nd Jun 2012, 13:49
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance

I think that this is a consequence of the marketing in the USA, drawing out a larger % of pilots with different "characteristics".

In the UK, some underwriters have reacted badly to chute pulls in what they presumably regarded as circumstances not justifying the PIC's decision to write off the aircraft. I know of one case where the excess was jacked up about 5x, IIRC.

In the USA, from one informal survey I saw some years ago, SR22 premiums were running at about 4x TB20 premiums. To be fair, the hull value would have been different (due to different ages); the TB hull might have been insured for $150k average whereas the SR22 hull might have been insured for $300k.

The most eye watering figure I recall was a DA42 premium in Canada which was well over US$10k.

007helicopter
22nd Jun 2012, 16:57
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance if it has such good safety benefits?

It has safety benefits but the reality is a fatality rate now about the same average for other similar TAA

It is very complex why the safety record is not better (and at times has been worse than average) I can not explain all those reasons.

The insurance I think is reasonable and no where near the figures above.

007helicopter
22nd Jun 2012, 17:09
In the UK, some underwriters have reacted badly to chute pulls in what they presumably regarded as circumstances not justifying the PIC's decision to write off the aircraft. I know of one case where the excess was jacked up about 5x, IIRC.

I would be genuinely interested to know more about that case, reg no, date etc, a pm is fine of prefer.

As far as I recall I am aware only one chute pull in the UK which was Oxford, a non IFR rated pilot in IMC I think. And touch wood the only fatality being the young guy leaving Biggin for Jersey, late in the day and very inexperienced.

Not many considering a reasonable size fleet and the hours flown.

However the total fleet size is 5000 + and we are sadly up to Cirrus Fatal accident No 88 which was an SR20 in UTAH, at high altitude, In the mountains, 4 up. Not a good recipe.

(PS apologies thread creep)

pilotinstructor
22nd Jun 2012, 18:05
i prefer the other engine. heard of candeling issues in some cases. in additiion, most pilots would probably try thr engine out procedures and then decide on the chute. time critical decision.

Cobalt
22nd Jun 2012, 19:52
007, PM sent on insurance.

Cobalt
22nd Jun 2012, 20:01
pilotinstructor,

the one scenario where the chute helps least is also the most critcal in a twin - engine failure immediately after take off. Although there are documented successful deployments from around 500ft, that is probably high enough to take the edge off the transition to asymmetric flight.

And yes, given sufficient altitude, the level headed cirrus pilot will trim for the glide, point towards somewhere landable and then try a re-start, see if they can make a sensible field, and then pull the chute.

I can also understand DAR Pilot s attitude that he considers no field sensible because you cannot tell if it really is sensible from a safe BRS deployment altitude. I do not share it, though - an opinion formed from once landing in a field... but his point is valid, I vividly remember how the number of poles, telegraph lines, overhead railway wires, bushes etc. increases HUGELY when you are coming down...

Maoraigh1
22nd Jun 2012, 20:01
Recent fatal accident in USA (not Cirrus) where the aircraft had been fitted with a balistic recovery system, but the CPL opted to attempt to land with elevator disconnected,
ERA12FA395 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120615X34118&key=1)

Pace
22nd Jun 2012, 20:22
Cobalt

I have had one forced landing into a field and lost an engine at 200-300 after takeoff in a twin.
I did not have an option of a chute. A twin will handle an engine out if treated correctly and a single if flown correctly with an ability to take in possible landing sites 45 degrees or more either side of the nose so you have options and do not fixate on the one point at any cost.
The same with the twin analyse the situation and use all the tools and best options available do not fixate on one.
Pulling the chute and you become a passenger for wherever the aircraft decides to come down into which might be anything from power lines to a fast flowing river or into someones house or a car group of people or whatever.
While you are in control of the aircraft you choose. Fail and its you who cocks up not the aircraft.

Pace

Cobalt
23rd Jun 2012, 00:26
Pace,

You should have addressed your comment to DAR Pilot - he is the one who will pull the chute instead of attempting a forced landing (although, to be fair, he was not talking about EFATO, which is too low).

Pilot DAR
23rd Jun 2012, 01:19
DAR Pilot - he is the one who will pull the chute instead of attempting a forced landing

Oh dear, what have I written that leaves you with that impression? I'll be flying the plane to the ground/water no matter what. I had never received any training which told me that there was a point at which to give up flying, and pull a handle (other than the jump flying, where they presumed that I was no longer in the plane anyway).

Though I acknowledge a very few infrequent circumstances, where things line up, and pulling the 'chute would be a good idea, particularly for a non pilot occupant, I am not a supporter of the BRS as a design feature as a catch all safety feature. I agree with the suggestions that it fosters taking chances, and complacency.

I suggest that if every pilot who would willingly pay the initial and on going cost of the BRS, and the cost of the lesser utility of the BRS equipped aircraft, would instead devote that money to more and recurrent training as to how to not need the 'chute, we'd all be better off. That pilot would have better skills and decision making, for any type of aircraft they flew. Better to prevent completely, than to allow to happen, then mitigate maybe....

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 07:09
Oh dear, what have I written that leaves you with that impression? I'll be flying the plane to the ground/water no matter what

Pilot DAR I don't think you said anything as I was the one saying it was generally my preferred option. (which has changed over the years from stay in control and fly it to the ground)

I also stated at the outset that each to their own but I would ask Pilot DAR and this is not being a smart ass as you have many more hours and experience than I ever will have, but have you done any amount of hours on a BRS equipped aircraft or any training on the benefits?

I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.

If we took a cross section of average PPL's and put them in a genuine engine failure situation completely randomly, out of 100 how many would die attempting to land in what ever terrain was at their disposal?

I personally think a reasonable percentage but no statistics I am aware of exist to verify this.

Regarding Chute pulls I only have Cirrus numbers out of 33 that have been conducted within the operating limits there has been ZERO fatalities and these have been over Sea, Running Water, Towns, Forests, Mountains, Open Fields etc.

My mind has been firmly made up, I just hope in the heat of the moment I do follow through as many a an aircraft has ended up in a hole with dead pilots and families and a perfectly good chute intact.

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 07:14
This Remos 15th June 2012, I pilot fatality, had a BRS

ERA12FA395 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120615X34118&key=1)

The ballistic parachute system parachute was not activated and found strewn along the debris path. The activation handle was found in the main wreckage secured with a padlock. :ugh:The key for the padlock was found on a key ring

An effing Padlock !!, in the Cirrus we have a pull pin, mine is allways removed before flight and the handle active, others Cirrus pilots refer to leave theirs in, one Cirrus fatality was found with the handle bent and the pin in !! , what a waste.

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 08:26
007Heli

I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.

I cannot agree with the above statement in any form if that was the case then every glider pilot would be deemed to have lost control.
An aircraft which flies has airflow which creates lift that makes it fly. To get that airflow without getting into too much detail you require an energy source! You have two to play with the energy source available from the engine and the energy source available from the airframe.
In still air the glider only has the one source from the airframe so the glider is loosing height to maintain flying speed.

How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.

By the time you land you will be near the stall speed. Most light singles dont need Heathrow to land on.
Taking out a hedge probably will not kill you! Stalling will as will other poor decision making or lack of skills.

As soon as you pull that chute the aircraft enters a state of NOT flying and you no longer have control.
Remember too that the descent rate and vertical impact with the ground is high and not to be taken lightly.

I too can see situations mainly pilot incapacitation and structural failure where the chute should be used but thats about it!
Under the chute with a high descent rate you in the lap of the Gods as to where you come down and as stated you could get severe back problems from the impact.
The negative side of having a chute is that pilots will push their luck with a false sense of security flying into conditions which neither they or the aircraft are up too.

Like Pilot Dar I think pilots are better placed honing their flying skills.
Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?
Training pilots to handle and experience all sorts of situations! The very tragic crash of the PC12 where the aircraft broke up in a very high speed dive worries me that we do not do enough with basic flying skills in and out of the envelope and spend too much time on avoidance.

As with a twin which has an extra engine that extra engine gives you more options. With more options comes more choices! With more choices comes the option to make more wrong choices the same with the chute!

Pace

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 09:06
Pace, sure I appreciate glider Pilots are trained to land in fields and have no engine power and also have air brakes and much lower landing speeds with greater glide ranges and are doing what they are designed to do.

I do not agree this is a fair comparison of your average PPL in a spam can (me included)

My point perhaps not made very well is that without an engine a normal SEP has much reduced and limited control would be a better way of saying it, ie you can not control exactly where you are going to end up and I think many misjudge it, usually with a bad outcome. I know that from doing my own PFL's and observing others, many seem to end up short of the anticipated landing area, combine that with challenging wind, visibility, adrenaline etc. In the heat of the moment in a real forced landing I bet decision making power and skill reduce dramatically.

I am just saying what my preference is with the tools I have available to me and what I have trained to use.

I totally agree with investing time and money in basic recurrent training which again my personal observation is the majority do not.

[QUOTE]Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?[QUOTE]

What is wrong with using Modern mentality? if the tools exist why not use them ?

When you say creating pilots again I must say looking over the years at accidents with or without modern tools it is generally the pilot error or decision making that causes the fatality.

Given the choice, Twin, Single whatever if BRS was an option I would have it on board.

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 09:11
You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.

Sorry, I strongly disagree, all the while you have altitude great, as soon as approaching the chosen lading point limited control of where you are now going and generally not many options to have a change of mind.

Again Pace you have much more experience than me and we are all trained to land in a field and this was a hard thing for me to change my thinking, which I believe I have now done over a period of several years.

Fuji Abound
23rd Jun 2012, 09:23
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.

I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.

Well I think you are both wrong, so there!

So the truth lies in between.

When the engine fails patently you have less control given that you have lost the ability to control your height profile to the same extent.

Never the less you are still in complete control of the aircraft albeit not necessarily in complete control of where it lands.

Most PPLs are complacent about PFLs. In my experience they are rarely practiced and most PPLs will do well to land in a chosen field unless the field presents perfectly! It rarely does! That doesnt mean they will kill themselves because aircraft are surprisingly good at passing over ditches or through hedges!

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 09:23
007heli

Is this a official recommended procedure for engine failure by Cirrus?
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result ?

I repeat an intact aircraft does not loose control and crash it's the pilot directing it that does that all on his own! So it still comes back to training, currency and ability.

Pace

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 09:29
Fuji, I will settle for that, but just to add to it the average terrain I view from the ground I would not like to land on it even if I made the right area.

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 09:45
Is this a official recommended procedure for engine failure by Cirrus?
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result

Pace fair point and I do not have the POH to hand for exact wording but along the lines of use in inhospitable terrain or over water etc.

So no not the official standpoint from the manufacturer but mine as PIC. (perhaps best you never come flying with me, I would hate to be wrestling in the air over trying to pull the CAPS handle)

Anyway my decision has not just been made because of a new gadget it is based on doing 3 x CPPP (Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programme's, essentially a 3 day course to enhance Pilot safet and decision making, organised by COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CPPPHome.aspx) ) Also I do annual recurrent training with Cirrus Platinum Instructors and have done formal Cirrus Sim training in the USA in use of the BRS, as I said it took me several years to change my opinion.

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 10:36
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control

Fuji

If you read my post above how am I wrong? Obviously you cannot maintain altitude which I have actually written " You will be trading altitude to maintain that control".
You are effectively a glider. I am sure glider pilots do not consider that they have lost control?
You still have control of your descent profile other than in a downdraft but in a downdraft even an aircraft with power can "loose control"
The rest is up to piloting skills or lack of them!!!
Tell the Space Shuttle pilots that they have lost control on their long descent to a landing ;) Never heard anything so ridiclous :)

Pace

Fuji Abound
23rd Jun 2012, 11:51
Pace

Semantics perhaps but you have LESS control than with the engine running for the reasons you state. A glider never had an engine in the first place (well most anyway) or the space shuttle (after re-entry) so they haven't "suffered" any change in the control.

The current philosophy among Cirrus pilots is that a conventional forced landing should be the exception, not the rule. Why? Well as I said earlier if you fly regularly with PPLs and "surprise" them with a simulated engine failure most don't make a very good job of things. Moreover the evidence of a good outcome following a chute deployment is very good indeed. The trouble with a conventional forced landing is that however good you are there is always the possibility of the unexpected. There are many cases of pilots failing to spot power cables, large boulders or other obstacles all of which can really spoil your day.

I am aware this topic has been done many many times before and both views are regularly expressed but I can only report the current consensus. Of course if you fly a Cirrus, are in current practice of FLs and there is a socking great big field presenting itself to you are going to carry out a conventional FL - I would at least. As the field gets smaller, the terrain more hostile and you face up to your current gliding skill levels the chute becomes ever more attractive! From my own point of view I am conscious of the dangers of indecision - if in doubt I shall be opting for the chute!

As to the original question the risk of an engine failure is very small, the risk in a twin of a double engine failure while not half is not far of. The point comes at which the risk of not carrying a chute are out weighed by other factors. For me that point is reached with a twin, but I am a firm believer that it is a worth while addition in a SEP.

All the best.

Pilot DAR
23rd Jun 2012, 12:58
As with a twin which has an extra engine that extra engine gives you more options. With more options comes more choices! With more choices comes the option to make more wrong choices the same with the chute!

Oh good statement! I'll be quoting this....

No, I have not taken training on the use of BRS, and I agree that more training is a fair approach to forming a qualified opinion. I don't envision myself flying a Cirrus anytime soon, but, you never know...

I ask myself though, with my possibly jaded attitude toward these systems, what would I do were I to be a guest passenger in such and aircraft, to a less experienced but Cirrus qualified pilot. It is obvious that that pilot and I would probably have quite different opinions on what constituted a good reason to pull the 'chute. The engine goes bang and stops at 2000 feet over mixed use land - the pilot starts to reach up.... I'd be saying whoa! Trim it for a glide, and let's have a good look around first... Similarly for other of the aforementioned failure modes.

We had a thread about "would you take over control?" a while back. I sure would be having that argument, before I allowed a lesser confident pilot pull the handle at a low risk threshold, and commit me to a very hard vertical landing which might not be necessary.

Change of survival is inversely proportional to angle of arrival

I'm not saying that there might not come a point where I would reach up too, but I suspect that my threshold for doing so would be very much higher than many pilots. You'd be amazed at what can be safely recovered and landed....

PPL in a spam can (me included)

Cirrus = "spam shell"?

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 14:57
Fuji and 007heli

I do not think that either of you have properly thought out the implications of what you are suggesting using the chute for engine failure.

Let me expand on that. A conventional chute is used to evacuate an unflyable aircraft to save your bacon from
An aircraft which is going down regardless.

Let me give a comparable situation which shows what you are suggesting !
I own say a Grumman tiger and because I am an incapable pilot lacking skills I strap on a conventional parachute.
I have an engine failure at 2000 feet.
I instantly pull back the canopy and abandon a perfectly flyable aircraft.
Floating down under my chute I watch as the aircraft goes on its merry way descending into the back garden of a house and killing a baby in a pram!

You are suggesting abandoning a flyable aircraft, pulling the chute which makes it unflyable and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't come down onto someone killing them?

Any good pilot with an engine failure will be constantly assessing the situation! They will quickly have plan A B and C in mind as they descend and will abandon A if it's looking pear shaped !
The bad pilot will sit there like a frozen goose with only plan A in mind and become a passenger to the inevitable crash.

I could not live with the results of my actions abandoning a flyable aircraft to a chute if my actions resulted in someone on the ground being killed!
Ok over rough unpopulated terrain maybe? But think of what you are considering ?

Pace

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 15:55
I do not think that either of you have properly thought out the implications of what you are suggesting using the chute for engine failure.

I can promise you IMHO I have.

You are suggesting abandoning a flyable aircraft, pulling the chute which makes it unflyable and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't come down onto someone killing them?

Basically yes, Lets say crap happens over a populated area, the chance of hitting a house or car or person is going to do a whole lot more damage at 60 knots in a forward direction than it is at around 17 knots in a downward direction.

Either way the reality of people on ground being injured by SEP is tiny so not that relevant to the debate..

In any event with sufficient altitude I would aim to glide as far as possible away from a populated area.

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 16:10
Pilot DAR I only flew in Canada once from Goose bay to Bangor, In a Cirrus SR22, it was a flight of 4-5 hours and I recall the majority of the trip was very inhospitable terrain, trees, small swampy looking lakes, also I assume hundreds of miles from a road or town. In that type of trip I did feel my chances of survival were vastly improved with a chute in the event of an emergency landing.

Also generally speaking I think there is an attitude that poor pilots rely on the chute and are wimps , real pilots can handle off airport landings in their stride with their skill and superior skills. (Not directed at you or anyone else) but I do feel it is a Macho attitude I have seen often.

As a lowly PPL I just do not like to risk factor of attempting an off airfield landing, 75% - 85% of which may be OK, I prefer better odds when things randomly go wrong, usually at a bad time.

I flew for an hour or so PM today over the Kent countryside, There were many fields that look tempting but reminded myself of what my SOP is.

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 16:27
007heli

We will have to beg to differ!
The big difference is the aircraft going at 60-70 kts is under pilot control and he has full directional control on where it goes!
The pilot under the chuted aircraft has absolutely NO directional control over where the aircraft comes down.
The winds effect that yes! But the pilot No.
Out of a Uk airport the chances of coming down onto someone are not as small as you think!
Cirrus could never publicly and officially make that recommendation as they would open themselves to being sued should anything occur.
Incapacitation yes the aircraft is unflyable other than by a passenger!
Structural damage yes
At night probably yes as in a forced landing you will not see much anyway!
Other than that they might as well teach students In conventional trainers to take a parachute along and abandon ship if the engine fails ; )

Pace beg to differ : )

007helicopter
23rd Jun 2012, 16:52
Pace no problem and I think 95% + on this forum may well agree with you.:ok:

Equally in the Cirrus community there is a healthy spread of for and against but my opinion is over the last years of CPPP's that the pro chute compared to off airfield landing is likely in the majority.

Fuji Abound
23rd Jun 2012, 19:38
Pace

I am not so certain you are correct.

The chute shouldnt be pulled at a high altitude (unless there is some exceptional reason for doing so, eg structural failure). Give the wind vector on the Avidyne and a reasonably low altitude the pilot will in fact have a reasonable idea of where he is going to land.

However, more to the point the landing will be almost vertical and without a great deal of energy. In contrast a conventional forced landing even well executed will carry a considerable amount more energy and the landing "roll" will be over a much greater distance.

I have seen first hand the effects of light twin (not very different from a Cirrus) landing in a row of houses.

At 1,500 feet with or without the engine the options start to narrow. If you are unfortunate enough to be over a built up area you are unlikely to be able to position the aircraft to ensure no collateral damage and my bet would be on your causing far less damage landing under a chute than not.

It is all very well thinking the average PPL would handle the emergency as well as you - the reality is the majority would not.

Can you imagine for a moment the difference between a Cirrus landing vertically on someones roof and impacting the side of the roof at 70 knots?

So in short it is a big assumption that the pilot without chute is in full directional control. He may well maintain control (although there are plenty of examples where he doesn't) but the options may not be attractive even under control. For those that havent it is well worth getting a mate to pull the throttle at 1,500 when you are not expecting it to happen. It sure as hell concentrates everyone's mind and you quickly realise you need to make decisions reasonably quickly.

It is all very well assuming an engine failure is going to be in the cruise at FL50 and good luck if it is. Chute or not all of a sudden you have a load more options. Unfortunately life doesn't always play by the rules; that is where another option is so invaluable.

Apologies for being reasonably passionate about this topic but I guess anyone with many hundreds of hours on a Cirrus would be. We have had to think about it and we have had to question what we would do. I have read the account of pretty much every chute pull and the banter about most of them. My own opinion is the evidence points to the outcome being a lot more predictable than a conventional forced landing. Case for case there are no guarantees and I shall be happy to never have to reach for the handle.

Pace
23rd Jun 2012, 23:46
Fuji

What you are suggesting is absolutely NO different to suggesting all PPLs carry and wear a parachute in a Cessna 150.
In the event of an engine failure forget forced landings or PFLs and instead make it policy to bail out and leave the aircraft to its own devices to crash wherever! There is absolutely no difference to pulling the chute on a perfectly flyable Cirrus aircraft! Its madness.

When I had my forced landing into a field it was much publiced in the press.
I was a new PPL, 25 plus years ago fresh out of car racing and a bit of a hot shot.
I ended up descending rapidly from 10000 feet to my home airfield as I could not afford the flight and was trying to make a straight in to save money.
Realising with no experience I could not make it I decided instead to impress everyone with a low pass and pull up.
I pulled up but with nothing from the engine and took to a field.
Over the hedge at 70 kts in a PA28 my passenger freaked out pulled the door open and tried to jump out!
The aircraft touched down just as I grabbed his jumper and he went out onto the wing with me in tow as I was scared he would break his kneck.
We ended up bouncing down the field with no one at the controls.
I could not hold him and let him go.
By the time I got back onto the brakes too late I took out a hedge which conceiled a chopped off tree stump which sliced through the wing.
Perfect landing and touch down into the field shame about the interuption.
So all that time back then no experience.
But what you are suggesting could mean taking out someone on the ground and making a perfectly flyable aircraft into one which is not.
Write to the CAA and suggest training changes, abolition of PFLs and requirement of all students to wear parachutes. New procedure? Bail out on engine failure! There is no difference to what you are suggesting.
Any Parachute is an escape route from an aircraft which is unflyable not from one which has just turned into a glider.

Pace

abgd
24th Jun 2012, 01:45
Well, I for one can see the difference between getting four people to bail out of a PA28, and pulling a BRS at 1000 feet.

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 07:21
What you are suggesting is absolutely NO different to suggesting all PPLs carry and wear a parachute in a Cessna 150.
In the event of an engine failure

Pace I think that is chalk and cheese to what we are talking about and a ridiculous comparison.

1) So I have my family in a Cessna say 172 and we are all going to jump out taking 2-4 minutes at least, I do not think so.

2) The aircraft would be then a relatively high speed lump of debris randomly impacting anywhere full of fuel and likely to explode.

No I do not think anyone is suggesting that and it would be madness and no one is suggesting writing to the CAA with this as a viable alternative.

It appears a difficult concept using BRS for most pilots to accept because for ever they / we have been trained to land in a field as the only available option to them was to land in a field.

Most do not have BRS available to them so discard it as a gimmick or a cop out of being the captain in command.

In the Cirrus their is a choice and a viable alternative. Due to its higher stall speed (than most spam cans) and small wheels that are not very good off road creating a bigger chance of flipping and kart wheeling I prefer to a pre planned decision that unless I have a known or virtually guaranteed suitable landing surface I will use the chute.

This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would choose to do in a non equipped BRS because they do not have the option.

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 07:32
Let me ask a question, using the Cirrus as an example, or a similar TAA aircraft with similar stall speeds and characteristics.

If you put an average PPL in that aircraft, with his loved ones four up, full fuel and did a random test at 2000ft over the UK where without warning they had zero power?

What do you think the success rate would be per 100 aircraft of complete success and no injuries to the occupants doing a traditional forced landing?

Who knows but I would expect 80% optimistic and at the very least 20% may not survive and probably more fatalities.

In my opinion and best guess if in the same scenario the chute was used I suspect the success rate would be in the very high 90's but I doubt 100% but it would be more likely to achieve 100% success with the Chute than either your average or for that matter your very experienced Pilot.

That is entirely why I have reached my decision.

Pace
24th Jun 2012, 09:07
007Heli

But then that is a reflection of the training not being good. A forced landing is not difficult for a properly trained and competant pilot. As long as you keep flying and land into wind the chances of killing yourself even if you hit something are small.

I am not opposed to the chute at all. It is a safety option but it is an option.
I have heard two forced landings on the radio in the past in both cases the pilots were discovered standing near the undamaged aircraft in a field.
Pull the chute and you destroy the airframe.

I would love a Cirrus! and the Chute. As we get older we become more cautious and aware of our own vulnerability especially if we carry people we love who we know would not stand a chance if we are incapacitated.
The chute would be a big bonus.

For me the governing rule should be is the aircraft safely flyable?
There are situations where I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain!

We all know the rules re engine failure over built up areas ie at a hight where we can glide clear!

Once you pull that chute you no longer have control over where it comes down.

The descent rate and impact is not a gentle thing and if it comes down on top of somebody it is you who have to live with the fact especially knowing you had perfectly tried and tested alternatives open to you.

You admit to being low time and having little confidence in pulling off a successful forced landing.

I would thoughly suggest you get a good instructor and sort that out so the chute becomes an option and not an answer to all which it is not!!

Pace

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 09:34
A forced landing is not difficult for a properly trained and competant pilot. As long as you keep flying and land into wind the chances of killing yourself even if you hit something are small

This is probably where we disagree most I think their is quite a reasonable chance but most deaths are not straightforward engine failure and land in field but CFIT, loss of control in IMC and all the other pilot errors.

There are situations where I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain!

I think we are all agreed on that, other than maybe the the definition of in hospitable terrain.

The descent rate and impact is not a gentle thing and if it comes down on top of somebody it is you who have to live with the fact especially knowing you had perfectly tried and tested alternatives open to you.

About 21 ft per second and generally calm and stable, according to BRS them selves about the same impact as jumping from 7ft. I am not aware any innocent person ever injured on the ground following a BRS pull so rule this out of my decision making process. They also here a hell of a bang and generally look up to see what happening.

You admit to being low time and having little confidence in pulling off a successful forced landing.

I have round numbers 800 Hours fixed wing and 300 rotary, around half my fixed wing in Cirrus, my attitude has changed from yours to mine over the last 2-3 years and is based on instruction from who I consider experts in the filed of BRS

I think I have around a 70 -80% chance of successin a forced landing while under pressure, in typical terrain and typical european weather, I just think I have a better chance genererally speaking with the chute.

I would thoughly suggest you get a good instructor and sort that out so the chute becomes an option and not an answer to all which it is not!!

It is about a year since I had a good work out on PFL's so yes a good reminder which I will take up, I totally agree the Chute is not always the answer in all situations.

Sadly some with it just totally forget in the heat of the moment it is available.

If I wanted a twin and the chute option existed, yep, I would still have it in the tool box.

Pace
24th Jun 2012, 12:28
007heli

Just through interest is there a difference between the SR20 and 22 under the chute?
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )

Pace

Fuji Abound
24th Jun 2012, 12:47
007heli

You make a good point. I think the philosophy among Cirrus pilots is different from the rest of the GA community. There has been so much ill informed reporting about the use of the chute that understandably it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think COPA's position is if in doubt pull the chute.

Pace I dont doubt the integrity of your views but I would ask you this; have you flown with a range of PPLs recently and asked them to demonstrate a PFL without warning? Theory is well and good but we live and operate in the real world. Whether PPLs are as good at PFLs as the use to be is academic, we can only deal with reality. I ask because in my experience most dont practice PFLs and the outcome is far from predictable even when most of us would like what we see.

paulp
24th Jun 2012, 13:16
At least in the US, insurance rates are mostly driven by hull value and secondly by pilot experience. I checked last year and a Bonanza was slightly more than a Cirrus having the same hull value.

The big negatives for the BRS system are cost (initial and 10 year repack), weight and space. On a twin that might mean a huge penalty.

There are a lot of scenarios where neither a second engine nor a BRS system help i.e. pattern stall, botched landing etc. where neither help.

Among Cirrus pilots there was a telling fatal in Florida where the pilot was known to be dismissive of BRS. He had an engine failure and decided to do an off field landing on what looked like good ground. Small wheels, 3400 max gross and a 59 knot stall speed led to a poor outcome. He and his wife died. There was another in the Florida Keys that had a better outcome without using BRS so it is just an odds thing. Stll, a Cirrus is very different from a Cub.

Pilot DAR
24th Jun 2012, 15:13
have you flown with a range of PPLs recently and asked them to demonstrate a PFL without warning?

Haha! I do! It's amazing what you can get away with doing to another pilot while you're doing type training or a test flight! I do lots of PFLs, as I shut engines down in flight a lot - so far they have always restarted.....

What I see here is an odd triangular argument. Some argue that a BRS is needed, to be the most safe under the circumstances of most engine failures. This presupposes that these people think that engine failures are common (I'm not expressing an opinion right now). Others are saying that engine failures are really quite rare, and this is a low risk, thus not requiring the safety benefits of the BRS. Then others are saying that most PPLs do not maintain proficiency in PFLs, which they should be doing.

If engine failures are common enough to pose a real safety risk, this would be evident across all GA aircraft, and PPL's (and a whole bunch of CPLs too!) would simply be scared into regular PFLs. That does not seem to happen - evidence the agreed lack of PFL proficiency. This could be interpreted to mean that pilots think that the engines are pretty reliable, and forced landings are uncommon.

So why do we need the cost and weight of the BRS to mitigate engine failures?

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 16:21
Among Cirrus pilots there was a telling fatal in Florida where the pilot was known to be dismissive of BRS. He had an engine failure and decided to do an off field landing on what looked like good ground. Small wheels, 3400 max gross and a 59 knot stall speed led to a poor outcome. He and his wife died. There was another in the Florida Keys that had a better outcome without using BRS so it is just an odds thing.

I know not representative but those odds are 50/50, I am sure there are Cirrus forced landing's that are successful that we never get to here about, we always here about the botched ones.

SDB73
24th Jun 2012, 16:21
For me, this has always been a non-subject.

Saying "I'd rather not have a chute onboard because I can land in a field" is a bit like saying "I'd rather not have that many lifeboats onboard my luxury ship because it has other factors which will save us" and we all know how that turned out.

Saying "because you'll get yourself into danger by relying on the fact it's there" is exactly what the "road hero dinasaurs" of the past said about anti-lock brakes, and air bags.

Having the chute onboard does not remove any options, it only adds to them. Whether you pull it or not is up to the pilot in command at the time.

For me : over water, forrest, built-up area (not able to glide clear), mountains, very wet ground, etc.. I'd look around, pick an approximate region to land in, position myself as best I can, and pull the chute.

It doesn't matter how much of a hero you are beyind a yoke, unless you have Superman-Vision you can't tell your chosen field has a bloody great pot hole in the middle of it that you're skillfully lining yourself up perfectly to place your front wheel into.

ABS, Airbags, Grippier Tyres, Crumple Zones, Safety Cells, Head Restraints, Improved Seatbelts, etc have all made driving safer, it hasn't instead caused everyone to go completely nuts driving around like F1 super stars. Of course, one or two people are predisposed to thinking "wow! I have a chute, I'm invincible!" and if you're one of those types of people then deliberately selecting a more dangerous aeroplane to temper that probably isn't the right solution for you. Fortunately, I'm not predisposed to this kind of thought process, so would rather have a conveniently placed ADDITIONAL safety mechanism within easy reach, should I deem it appropriate in an emergency.

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 16:24
Just through interest is there a difference between the SR20 and 22 under the chute?
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )

See Pace I knew you would get sucked into my persuasive argument and really you are a closet BRS type of guy just waiting to come out.

Seriously I do not know the answer and have not heard of any significant difference between the 20 & 22 as far as BRS.

It would be extremely interesting if you did get one, perhaps you would then more closely look at the pros and cons and after a couple of years see if your standpoint had changed in any way.

SDB73
24th Jun 2012, 16:25
In respect of Insurance.

Insurance costs are based on financial risk, not human safety risk. It stands to reason, that having a handle in the aeroplane which dramatically reduces the risk of death, but also writes off the aeroplane, is going to be a financial risk.

So the insurance is more expensive.

Good maintenance and backup instruments cost money too, but I'd personally rather pay for the safety the provide, than save the money and take the extra risk.

paulp
24th Jun 2012, 18:19
I know not representative but those odds are 50/50, I am sure there are Cirrus forced landing's that are successful that we never get to here about, we always here about the botched ones.

At least in the US, off airport landings usually make the local press and thereby the COPA forums. Statistically, I don't think anyone argues that the odds are in the pilot's favor during an off airport landing. They do seem to decrease as airplane performance goes up. Big jets rarely do well. The BRS record, however, is excellent. Many off airport landings still total the plane even though the passengers survive. The argument gets to be increased risk of death or injury balanced against the chance of saving the plane.

Pace
24th Jun 2012, 19:04
007Heli

I am not against a chute at all or using it for engine failure over heavely wooded areas or rough terrain.
I am against using it as a standard procedure for engine failure when there are good fields available or over built areas and well populated areas where by using the chute I am risking people on the ground.
It goes against the grain to abandon a serviceable aircraft just because I have lost the one engine while I still have all the potential energy available to me from the aircraft ie becoming a glider.
I do think pilots should spend a lot more time in practising forced landings and field selection as the chute still should be a last resort not a primary solution.
You will without doubt wreck the aircraft which probably should not be damaged in a well executed forced landing.
But I do like the Cirrus and can see many benefits as well as negatives in having a chute.
Negatives that confidence of having a chute will draw you into the very situation where you need to use it.

Pace

Fuji Abound
24th Jun 2012, 19:17
Negatives that confidence of having a chute will draw you into the very situation where you need to use it.

Pace

Now I know you are getting desperate.;)

You shouldn't resist safety enhancements because they might drag a pilot into something he shouldn't be. Where would we be? No autopilot because the pilot might rely on it when he should be able to hand steer in IMC. No green button to recover the aircraft when he discovers he cant. No moving maps and IAPs painted on grand glass screens because the pilot will have more confidence he can fly an IAP when he should be able to do so using just a 6 pack.

It doesn't wash and I suspect you know it doesn't.

007helicopter
24th Jun 2012, 20:00
You will without doubt wreck the aircraft which probably should not be damaged in a well executed forced landing

On a very well executed forced landing I agree, what I disagree with is the ability of the majority of pilots to do well executed forced landings consistently in real life adrenaline pumping situations.

On this point I have again spent a fair amount of time considering this and have totally ruled out the need or desire to save the ship, if I find myself having to land off airfield then the only outcome I care about is walking away for me and my occupants and that is my sole focus on the best and safest way to do that.

Another point not raised so far is in an attempt to make a field, when caught out and coming up short there is a huge chance while impossibly trying to stretch the glide of stalling into the ground, this is rarely survivable and has caught out some extremely experienced and now dead pilots.

abgd
24th Jun 2012, 21:08
You shouldn't resist safety enhancements because they might drag a pilot into something he shouldn't be.

There's a professor called John Adams who's written a lot about 'risk compensation'. He argues that effect of safety measures in cars such as seatbelts have largely been negated because drivers feel safer and therefore drive more quickly. In contrast, life for pedestrians becomes ever more treacherous.

It's controversial...

peterh337
24th Jun 2012, 21:51
I think the loss of payload is a big factor.

A modern 4-seater plane (SR22, TB20 kind of thing) has about 500kg payload. Actually that is pretty good going.

Put in full fuel and you are down to say 250kg.

Put in full TKS and you are down to 150kg.

Put in a chute and you are down to 100kg :)

You can play with the numbers but it is not insignificant.

Cirrus got away with it because it gave them a huge marketing advantage. The extra fuel burn due to that and the fixed gear is not questioned.

Fuji Abound
24th Jun 2012, 22:48
Yes but the full fuel payload of an sr22 is 20lb more than a tb20.

Some drivers may drive more quickly and some pilots fly more challenging missions but that still doesnt justify ignoring safety enhancements that would be just that based on two equivalent flights.

If the argument held true air bags could equally full into the same category.

However the chute probably does mean some pilots will fly profiles they wouldnt without. Personally i have never been keen on night in a sep, or for that matter flying over fog or very low cloud bases, i am not that keen on sea crossings if its rough but much more comfortable with a chute. So sure guilty i approach flying a sep differently if it has caps.

paulp
25th Jun 2012, 01:43
I had a friend die just shy of the runway. He had an emergency and was performing an engine out landing. He stalled trying to get over some trees and nosed into the ground. At the funeral while listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about her dad I couldn't help but think how different things would have been had he pulled. He was in a Cirrus.

Pace
25th Jun 2012, 07:50
Look guys I am not making an argument against a chute. It is likely that when I stop flying jets I may join up into a group and would select the Cirrus for the safety benefits of the chute.
For me the chute is an option which I may or may not take depending on how I would read the situation.
I am going to put a scenerio to both Fuji and 007 which is a likely scenerio.

You have taken off out of an airport where the climb out crosses built up areas! I can think of many like that.
You are climbing on runway heading through 1000 feet when bang and a dead prop.
You push the nose over and survey your options! Below a built up area with no landing sites ahead and within gliding distance some smallish fields with a few trees and hedges. No Heathrow sized fields but enough to get down on and maybe take out a hedge.

What will both iof you do? I know what i would do and it would not be pulling the chute.
Fuji I am not getting desperate it is well documented that one of the problems with the chute is the knowledge that having one leads you into flying in conditions that you and the aircraft are not up to

Pace

007helicopter
25th Jun 2012, 08:10
Pace, morning, I can tell you without hesitation I hope I would remember to pull the chute.

This to me is a classic situation where it is a no brainer to use the Chute IMHO

My take off procedure is at 500ft I religiously do a simple thing which I was taught at CPPP called "Flaps and Caps"

As I raise the flaps my hand then goes immediately to touch the CAPS handle to remind me CAPS is now active and I actually say it out aloud.

So as not to lose split seconds in this critical phase you describe I would pull it.

Below 500ft I would stuff the nose down and point at the largest open space that came immediately to view and try and fly it to the ground.

Also after power checks on the ground if I am with another Pilot I brief them that this is what I will do.

If they do not like it they are welcome to get out at that point.

PS My home field Rochester EGTO has pretty much what you describe on several of the main departure tracks, the others not build up but mainly trees.

007helicopter
25th Jun 2012, 08:18
it is well documented that one of the problems with the chute is the knowledge that having one leads you into flying in conditions that you and the aircraft are not up to

I am not doubting that this could be the case but would be interested for the benefit of the discussion to see the documented case's of this.

Likewise you could say training pesky PPL's to fly aircraft leads them into flying conditions that the aircraft or Pilot are not up to, which is often the reality of our hobby. They do not need a chute to do this.

Pace
25th Jun 2012, 08:32
007Heli

You say it's a no brainer but for me it would be! Pulling the chute over a heavily built up area would mean that you would come down into those houses, cars , gardens , people , schools etc.
If that is a no brainer decision ?
The result would be massive publicity and chances if killing someone on the ground are pretty high.
For me it's a no brainer I would glide away from the built up area and then pull the chute or use my skills to force land.
I can assure you I would definately not stall and I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly : )

Pace

007helicopter
25th Jun 2012, 09:11
The result would be massive publicity and chances if killing someone on the ground are pretty high.

I think the chances of killing someone on the ground are very remote and out of the I believe 276 saves from BRS I have never heard it injuring an innocent 3rd party on the ground BRS Aviation | Home (http://brsparachutes.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx)

admittedly these were not all over built up areas but nevertheless I perceive that risk miniscule and certainly relative small to the greater risk of aircraft in general risk of having airport near built up areas in the first place.

I would glide away from the built up area and then pull the chute or use my skills to force land.

In your exact example the 1000ft is a critical altitude, below this the Chute is not proven to be effective (although it has been many times) so that was my reason for immediately and I do not perceive time to spend seconds weighing up options at that altitude, over 1000ft I would certainly attempt to glide in as clear a direction as possible and then do the deed.


I can assure you I would definately not stall and I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly : )

Entirely your choice, you also mentioned trees, they may well kill you as will Kart wheeling, post impact fire and in the heat of the moment misjudging the whole deal which I personally think every pilot in the world is capable off.

Let me ask you a question , with your loved ones on board would you 100% aim for that smallish field with a few trees?

007helicopter
25th Jun 2012, 09:18
I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly

Maybe this is part of your problem:E

We do something once and get away with it , it then reinforces our ability to get away with it again and conditions us to think it will be OK.

ie I flew through that icing and got away with it no problem, this anti ice on the Cirrus is great !!!

Pace
25th Jun 2012, 09:22
Let me ask you a question , with your loved ones on board would you 100% aim for that smallish field with a few trees?

No but I have not argued 100%
Every situation is different and that is an on the day judgement. Over a heavily built up area? Yes I would take to the distant fields as I do NOT agree with you that the chances of a Cirrus coming down at a high descent rate into a school yard does not carry a high risk of killing someone on the ground.
Also you forget another point in that you are a victim of the winds of the day so still may suffer a 30 kt forward impact into a church steeple or building.
At least if you comedown vertically onto the church spire you will make a nice Salvador Dali style work of art :E but it maybe painful to future family expansion :E

Do not for one second imagine that coming down under a chute does not itself carry risk at least with a flying aircraft you have control under a chute you have none.

Pace

SDB73
25th Jun 2012, 09:23
I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly

Be very careful with undue over-confidence. As human beings we're programmed to underestimate a risk once we've taken it and been successful.

If you stand at the side of the M1 with a blind fold on, and ear defenders, and run across the carriage way. You could probably do that a number of times without getting hit by a car. But that doesn't make it safe or a sensible thing to do.

007helicopter
25th Jun 2012, 09:37
No but I have not argued 100%
Every situation is different and that is an on the day judgement.

Can't argue with that and could not agree more, but in the exact situation that you gave that would be my choice and I suspect the vast majority of the Cirrus / BRS community who have received specific BRS instruction would agree.

Landing on a member of public as a risk is reduced substantially by virtue of at a 1000ft they are going to here that rocket explode very clearly and be looking skyward.

Landing on a spire, cliff edge, pylon, sewage works, motorway etc etc are all going to make it an uncertain outcome and will be inevitable sooner or later for some poor sod.

abgd
25th Jun 2012, 17:52
Some drivers may drive more quickly and some pilots fly more challenging missions but that still doesnt justify ignoring safety enhancements that would be just that based on two equivalent flights.

I half agree, and I half think that's missing the point.

I can see that pulling the BRS at night is likely to be much safer than a forced landing at night, and I would probably be a lot more willing to fly at night if I had a BRS. To me this seems reasonable.

The issue with risk-compensation would be more about making silly decisions because of an increased sense of confidence - e.g. flying in very poor weather conditions or doing aerobatics in an aircraft that isn't cleared for them.

If ever you watch the news, during floods or blizzards, you are likely to see a disproportionate number of people who've come to grief crossing fords or coming off the road in their 4x4s. It isn't that a 4x4 is less able to cope with these conditions: just that their owners overestimated their capability and got themselves into trouble.

I also had a patient who was a BMX nut and had about 20 admissions for broken bones. When I asked him whether he wasn't overdoing things he assured me that he was very careful and always wore a helmet.

paulp
25th Jun 2012, 19:03
The concept is risk homeostasis. Generally, the safety feature must be obvious to the user. For example, airbags have little affect not do side impact beams. However, better tires, brakes and suspension do. In airplanes I expect BRS has some (night flights, low IFR, mountains) but I personally suspect in-cockpit weather has more of an effect along with GPS. Risk homeostasis isn't totally a bad thing. For example, people usually buy twins because they want to fly more challenging missions. People get IFR capable planes for the same reason. Probably the all time biggest offender is the attitude indicator. Moreover, according to risk homeostasis, people adjust to the same PERCEIVED risk level. Often perception doesn't match reality. I expect the introduction of the AI resulted in people taking on increased risk that they perceived as being more mitigated by the AI than it was.

Jan Olieslagers
25th Jun 2012, 19:09
airbags have little affect not do side impact beams

Apologies if I am stupid, but could someone kindly phrase this in English?

peterh337
25th Jun 2012, 20:42
What he means, I think, is that an airbag doesn't really make anybody drive faster, but a better handling car with better brakes etc would do.

Paulp is obviously right in that more capable hardware is purchased (mainly) for flying more challenging mission profiles.

Speaking of the Cirrus chute, I don't know whether the presence of the chute drives a more challenging mission profile, rather than the marketing which is aimed at a different (younger, wealthier, but not by default better trained because the initial pilot training is not type specific) pilot population.

My guess is that the more experienced a pilot is, the more likely he would be to consciously use the chute to fly a riskier mission profile.

Maoraigh1
25th Jun 2012, 21:03
airbags have little affect not do side impact beams
airbags have little affect nor do side impact beams. Typo?

abgd
25th Jun 2012, 21:54
Okay... I give in:

airbags have little effect; neither do side impact beams.

Sometimes keybroads mangle what yo'ure trying to say.

There's a lot of truth in it, but I'm not sure that you can totally discount 'hidden' safety improvements. Part of the alleged thrill of fairground rides is that they feel dangerous but we know they're safe. It certainly is possible for cognition to guide our asssessments of risk.

(alleged because, since learning to fly, I haven't found much excitement in them.)

Fuji Abound
25th Jun 2012, 23:22
You see its all to do with age really.

If you stare into the cockpit of most cirrus you will see some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s or heaven forbid 60s; when you are 20 or 30 you cant afford it!

Now we all know as we get older the perception of our own mortality exponentially increases with age, the fragility of our bones but diminishes with our ego.

So at 50 we need the comfort of a chute because we realise our bones will no longer take it, but we think we will never need it because we have the wisdom to stay within our personal limits. Unfortunately for some our egos increase at about the same rate as our risk aversion so we end up doing something silly. ;)

And then there are the young with too much money and no wisdom at all. The chutes perfect for them because their bones will take it but unfortunately at least sometimes they think they can solve the problem they themseves have got into without the chute.

So amoung the boring old farts and the wisdomless youngsters some will allow their egos to get the better of them, and some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt, but you and me will forget we have a chute until we realise we really need it, and then we will pull, feel happy we did and say our thanks that we had a last resort for our ultimate nightmare.

flybymike
26th Jun 2012, 00:32
some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s or heaven forbid 60s; .........some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt,
I am in my farthood sixties and would welcome the chance to pull just about anything...

paulp
26th Jun 2012, 02:37
airbags have little affect nor do side impact beams. Typo?

Thanks. It's what I get for using an iPad. Darn autocorrect.

peterh337
26th Jun 2012, 05:58
I am in my farthood sixties and would welcome the chance to pull just about anything...

Get yourself a Cirrus and you will be able to pull almost anything :E

007helicopter
26th Jun 2012, 06:14
If you stare into the cockpit of most cirrus you will see some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s

Damn, that's me !!:sad:

and some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt, but you and me will forget we have a chute until we realise we really need it, and then we will pull,

I am not aware of much evidence of chute pulls when they should not, I am sure there must be a few but do you have any examples?

I think for virtually all pilots (including me) the natural instinct is to try and save the day, not have the stigma of pulling the chute and admitting failure, wrestle it to the ground, not write off the ship, see if things improve on the way down, Plus do what we were virtually all trained to do and land in a field, all these thoughts prevent chute pulls plus simply forgetting in the heat of the moment and using it when really needed.

goldeneaglepilot
26th Jun 2012, 07:03
I do wonder if the pilot in the report below would have thought more about NOT undertaking the flight due to the weather if he had not got a BRS fitted.

Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Cirrus%20SR20,%20N470RD%2007-11.pdf

Pace
26th Jun 2012, 08:01
007Heli

There is no doubt the chute has huge safety benefits especially regarding pilot incapacitation and where the aircraft becomes unflyable.
Where there is a question is using the chute where the aircraft is flyable.

I think it is alarming that We are more and more teaching to avoidance and turning out aeroplane drivers rather than pilots.

I could see situations even with the aircraft as flyable where I would use the chute! Over dense forest or rocky terrain.

I WOULD SERIOUSLY question using the chute on a flyable aircraft over densely populated or built up areas.

Remember there is already a rule in place regarding such flight which is at an altitude which allows you to glide clear.

I do not believe Cirrus would ever condone publicly using the chute over built up areas rather than gliding clear as the public liability issues would be enormous.

Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt.

Responsibly used the chute is an excellent safety asset. Used without thought it is a liability to increasing accidents and a threat to those on the ground.
Would I like a Cirrus with a BRS! Yes love one ;)
Pace

flybymike
26th Jun 2012, 11:34
Surprised to read in that AAIB report that a Cirrus with two glass screens was approved for flight under VFR only...

Fuji Abound
26th Jun 2012, 11:52
As with any aircraft the equipment needs to meet the requirements for IFR and without a standby AI it doesn't. Why you would make (or buy) a Cirrus without IFR capability is another matter, but as usual cost is a factor and doubtless some are more than happy to trade cost for equipment particularly if they have no intention of ever going IMC. All that said in an emergency situation (and as you appreciate) short of the PFD failing the aircraft has all the equipment needed to enable the pilot to recover to VMC.

Edited to add - it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen). Continuing with the standby AI and compass usually found in Cirrus should not be too much of a problem but with just a T and S and compass (which are not ideally situated on the panel) it might well prove a challenge for most.

The report does raise some interesting questions about whether or not the pilot actually entered IMC. I have to say if he remained in VMC it does seem odd he resorted to the chute. If he didnt remain in VMC it demonstrates another example of the chute probably saving the occupants lives. For me it is largely academic to second guess whether the pilot should have got himself into that situation in the first place - there are plenty enough examples of pilots that do without a chute.

It is also interesting that it is suggested the chute was deployed at a far higher speed that ideal - never the less reassuring that the chute will cope in these circumstances.

Finally it is interesting the pilot attempted to use the engine to reposition the aircraft. This has been attempted before. I have to say I am still not clear how successfully. It is a shame there is not a more detailed analysis in the report (or perhaps I need to read the report more carefully).

paulp
26th Jun 2012, 12:23
I would think that coming down under canopy over a populated area would be safer than dead sticking it in. If you hit a roof under canopy it is doubtful you will crush into someone's bedroom. Coming down vertically makes for a smaller impacted area and a lot less kinetic energy The large chute and noise of the rocket firing serve as warning signals. The lower closing speed under canopy vs. a descent at optimum glide means more time to react. There has never been a person injured on the ground due to a Cirrus descending under canopy. I haven't heard about one from other BRS equipped planes but there could be one.

The record shows that BRS has a usage profile similar to when ejection seats were first introduced. The problem isn't unnecessary pulls but rather people not pulling when they should. Going to my friend's funeral drove that home.

As for old farts flying planes (guilty) it is a painful reality of the economics.

flybymike
26th Jun 2012, 12:37
Edited to add - it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible
I think the report said that it had a gyro turn co ordinator to drive the A/P but it was located behind the panel and not visible to the pilot.

peterh337
26th Jun 2012, 13:03
That UK Cirrus chute pull (I am assuming there has been only one so far) was immediately followed by a letter from the insurer advising of a massive hike in the insurance excess.

The AAIB report doesn't exactly create a good impression of the pilot, but one could say that about many others. It is the Cirrus ones that get dragged out repeatedly...

A VFR-only Cirrus is a chocolate teapot but that is a different topic. No, I don't get it either.

Sillert,V.I.
26th Jun 2012, 13:21
...it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure...

I don't think much of this philosophy either.

I've not had the pleasure of flying a Cirrus, but surely anyone with any kind of rating allowing flight in IMC should at least be capable of maintaining controlled flight with just a T&S and compass?

Edit: Have just seen this:

I think the report said that it had a gyro turn co ordinator to drive the A/P but it was located behind the panel and not visible to the pilot.

This is mind boggling - the additional cost of fitting an electrically-driven turn coordinator visible to the pilot is surely miniscule in relation to the price of a Cirrus?

execExpress
26th Jun 2012, 13:24
The Cirrus SRV was a VFR-only version of SR20 optimized for the low-end private ownership and flight training market. Relatively few sold.

"Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt."

So many developments that could encourage pilots to fly in conditions that they or the aircraft might not be up to...
...machines with wings, instrumentation, AI's, autopilots, two engines, three engines, four engines, jet engines, pressurisation, seatbelts, airbags, crash helmets, more 'crashworthy' structures, fire-extinquishers, weather radar, storm scope, anti-ice, fiki, BRS, and no doubt technology will continue to provide further opporutunities to develop knowledge, skills and judgement or perhaps experience the unforgiving circumstances that can arise out there.

I do not have evidence either way as to whether the SRV pilot 'attempted the flight BECAUSE' the aircraft had a BRS.

What we do have is plenty of evidence over decades of accident investigations of VFR in to IMC accidents like that, which usually end very badly of course.

Seems reasonable to hypothesize that a proportion of such a 'population' is nowadays flying aircraft with BRS, some will end up using BRS and some will live to witness how it all went to pot rather then ending the flight tragically.

The difference between this Oxford pull and many VFR-IMC fatals over the years would appear to me to be not that the chute got the pilot into that situation in the first place (evidence?), but fortunately did get the aircraft on the ground safely (it did).

Rather than see it as 'there's an accident that happened because of the BRS' I see it as 'there is yet another VFR-IMC accident, that would most likely have been fatal bar the BRS'.

The list of VFR-IMC fatal accidents, and other 'out of depth' accident types will continue to grow over time. Short of parallel universes I doubt anything that could really tell us if that list is growing faster or slower as the result of BRS technology, or say auto-pilot or AI technology.

-------------------------------------

"but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen)."

Really? Whose current philosophy would that be Fuji?


.

Pace
26th Jun 2012, 13:34
Paul

Obviously if you cannot glide clear of a built up area you are far far better coming down into buildings under a chute and vertically than at flying speeds!
A couple of points come up in that scenario! Firstly the gliding clear rule ! If you are too low over an extensive built up area to glide clear you are breaking the law being there!
If your not too low chances are you can glide clear!
The biggest difference is that at flying speeds even engine out you as the pilot are fully in control of where you go, what you hit or don't hit as the case may be.
The outcome will depend on your flying skills, judgment and precision.
Pull the chute and you are out of control and at the mercy of the winds as to where you crash . Make no mistake it will be a crash which will be at high rate of descent. It will wreck the airframe and on a windy day you may still run horizontally into a brick wall at 30 miles an hour!
The concept of using the chute as an answer to everything is a dangerous principal to hold.

Pace

Fuji Abound
26th Jun 2012, 13:43
To be fair it would appear neither the aircraft or pilot were instrument rated. There is nothing wrong in that as there are plenty of high performance home built that would fall into the same category.

It is well rehearsed that incursion into IMC by a non instrument rated pilots can be a recipe for disaster although with current training and a functioning autopilot (or even without) one would hope the pilot would do a reasonable job of getting themselves out of trouble (or at least make a reasonable attempt before resorting to the chute).

That said, it is one thing to remain upright with a conventional gyro and compass and quite another for the non instrument rated pilot with a T and S and compass.

In this case there is no suggestion the PFD had failed so it would seem the pilot has a fully functioning AI and compass. There is some doubt as to whether the autopilot may have tripped but that shouldn't itself have been too much of a problem.

With regards to T and S and a compass its all very well saying that any instrument rated pilot should make a good job of flying in IMC with nothing more, but I am not convinced. Remember in this particular configuration of the Cirrus that really would be all you are left with, there is no GPS, VOR or ILS tracking other than whats available on the 430s (I am guessing these are fitted in this configuration, but I don't know) and at least in my book this would be a genuine emergency even for an instrument rated pilot. (All that said remember that is not the scenario in this accident).

Hypothetically if (he says he didn't) the pilot inadvertently entered IMC and if in some light turbulence the autopilot tripped the aircraft's attitude might have become upset very quickly (or he might have inadvertently disengaged the autopilot, I don't think that would show up on the data track) and in a moment of "panic" the pilot decided the best option was to pull the chute. Given the speed it does sound like the aircraft had already well and truly departed from normal flight and the pilot was probably very wise to do so given he was not instrument rated. So in reality in these hypothetical circumstances it is "just" another example of inadvertent flight into instrument conditions EXCEPT with a happy outcome.

flybymike
26th Jun 2012, 14:24
What do all you guys who can fly in IMC using just a turn and slip, and a compass, use for pitch information? ,

Pilot DAR
26th Jun 2012, 14:35
What do all you guys who can fly in IMC using just a turn and slip, and a compass, use for pitch information?

Well, it's probably thread drift, and certainly has been done to death here, but: Airspeed. If the ASI for some reason has also quit, you have the relative airflow noise (loader = faster = decsending). You also have perhaps an altimeter.

I did this once suddenly during an instrument failure in IMC conditions, and though not precise, it worked and go me out.

To drift back, if you've maganged to loose control during IMC flight as a result of an instrument failure, I would suspect that you had taken the BRS equipped aircraft beyond the intended deployment envelope. BRS is not a subsitute for minium IMC piloting skills!

Madbob
26th Jun 2012, 14:47
When I was taught instrument flying on a "limited panel" pitch info (with no AH) is derived from scanning the ASI and VSI. Generally if the airspeed is increasing and decending the nose is too low.....and vice versa. The trick was to be smooth, make small corrections early, keep the scan going and avoid increasing "g"...

Any increasing "g" was likely to be as a result of getting into a spiral dive.....

The recovery was to unload the "g" (the turn needle would be unreliable under high "g") correct the turn (ie remove bank) re-apply pitch up with wings level until the speed was under control again pitch down slightly to stop any climb (using the alt and vsi) when level adjust speed by use of throttle. With practice it became quite easy.....as do most things in flying......practice, currency and a continual striving to fly accurately is the the key.

In the RAF this was taught from a very early stage as inevitably gyros would "topple" doing aerobatics and any inadvertant entry into cloud, say whilst in a spin, would require recovery on instruments where only pressure-driven instruments, ASI, ALT, VSI, T&S would be working.

I hope that this is of help.

MB

flybymike
26th Jun 2012, 14:48
Yes I know about using Airspeed, altimeter, VSI etc, but there was no mention of these instruments being available. Just T&S and compass!
With regards to T and S and a compass its all very well saying that any instrument rated pilot should make a good job of flying in IMC with nothing more,
surely anyone with any kind of rating allowing flight in IMC should at least be capable of maintaining controlled flight with just a T&S and compass?

peterh337
26th Jun 2012, 15:02
Every plane must have an altimeter.

The standard partial panel procedure (no DI, no AI, no VSI) is to use the TC for wings level (with timed turns to turn onto a new heading) and to use the altimeter for pitch.

It's quite easy provided you don't have to do very much else ;)

A VSI is a worse pitch reference than an altimeter because of the lag.

paulp
26th Jun 2012, 16:46
I am just guessing at the configuration of the Cirrus in question but if it was an Avidyne Entegra equipped plane then there is a TC that is hidden behind the panel that drives the AP. Before everyone goes ballistic over this you need to check what is visible. There is a TC in the PFD (along with AI, airspeed, etc.). As backup there is an altimeter, airspeed indicator and a second AI (standard electric round gauges) just below the PFD. I'll take a second AI over a second TC any day. Compared to most planes it takes a lot to leave the pilot with no attitude guidance. There are dual batteries and dual alternators diode connected to two busses. The essential bus is diode isolated from the main so if something shorts that isn't on the essential bus (Garmin #2 for example) then the essential bus function will still work. The AP can fly the plane straight and level and even follow a GPS course (if GPS1 working) with the PFD and backup AI out based on the hidden TC.

paulp
26th Jun 2012, 16:57
Pace - I don't think the chute is the answer to even half of everything :) However, at least where I fly, you would bust class B if you climbed high enough to glide clear of everything. I just think there is less of a chance of injuring someone coming down under canopy. A Lancair killed a guy on a beach because the guy running didn't hear the plane and the pilot said he only noticed him at the last second. The real fact is that danger to people on the ground from small planes is over rated. The number of deaths on the ground is very small in any year and most come from well intentioned pilots going down in densely populated neighborhoods because there was nowhere else to go.

AdamFrisch
26th Jun 2012, 16:58
I'm actually flying right now with a broken AI. I have it covered up, because my eyes kept going to it. So if I was to inadvertently enter cloud/night/freezing rain I would only have my turn indicator to know if I'm upright. If something else failed on top of this, like a frozen pitot or something, I'd be in trouble.

007helicopter
26th Jun 2012, 22:11
"but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen)."

Absolutely not, I never heard of this before and would certainly hope it would not be the case.

Finally it is interesting the pilot attempted to use the engine to reposition the aircraft. This has been attempted before. I have to say I am still not clear how successfully. It is a shame there is not a more detailed analysis in the report

Some have claimed to be able to use the engine to steer the aircraft under canopy but I believe it is fairly well accepted this is not possible.

Pace
26th Jun 2012, 22:19
Paul

This is the last time I am going to post on this as I am repeating myself. At the end of the day I can only be responsible for my own actions flying others for theirs.
The Cirrus is a lovely aircraft and the chute is a wonderful addition which already has a good record of saving lives.
My concern is using it as a standard engine failure recovery system. If I was flying over a built up area and knew I did not have enough altitude to glide clear of course I would be the first to take to the chute.
I would probably steer the aircraft to a point where I felt it would do minimal damage to people on the ground but then I would pull it as in control of the aircraft or under a chute I am coming down into that built up area.
Both scenarios flying under control into a built up area or parachuting out of control into a built up area are not a good situation to be in but the chute would have a slightly better chance of a successful outcome.
Over greenfields even if there is the odd hedge around I would put it down in a forced landing rather than pulling the chute.
As for the aircraft I would love to own a part share in one probably an SR20 when I stop flying private jets and the chute would play a major part in the confidence factor taking family and friends up single pilot and probably would do for pilots in their 40s 50s and beyond.
I would try not to let it influence my flying decisions where I took to weather or conditions which I would not fly in in a chuteless aircraft.
Beyond that if I felt the aircraft was readily flyable I would fly it rather than pulling the chute but then I am a confident and arrogant pilot :E I would rather be that way than a lacking in confidence in my abilities, nervous pilot!

007helicopter
26th Jun 2012, 22:26
I do wonder if the pilot in the report below would have thought more about NOT undertaking the flight due to the weather if he had not got a BRS fitted.

Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf

I suppose we will never know that but I guess plenty of non BRS equipped pilots end up in the same situation & often dead. In this case it would seem likely that he would have not recovered the aircraft under his own efforts.

Interesting to note that he did not receive much training about the CAPS procedure in his transition training, and also note CAPS deployment worked successfully at 187 KIAS, which is well above the 133 KIAS demonstrated deployment airspeed.

paulp
27th Jun 2012, 03:24
Pace - While we may disagree on some fine points, it is probably less than you think. I've had two instructors who dead sticked a Cirrus down after an engine failure so I don't feel pulling is the only answer. Then again, I'm not the best pilot which I rediscovered recently doing engine out practice. :(

Pace
27th Jun 2012, 07:06
Paul

We are probably not that far apart ;) Do you know if using the chute for engine failure is a standard operating procedure recommended and approved by Cirrus?
There have been roughly 35 pulls which is a small amount compared to flights made and as such not indicative of because it has not happened yet it will not!
If a person or persons on the ground are killed in the future by a Cirrus which could have glided clear but descended into a built up area on recommendation from Cirrus the ramifications are huge and on that point alone I could not see Cirrus formally approving the chute as a SOP for engine failure but only for loss of control.

Pace

007helicopter
27th Jun 2012, 17:24
Do you know if using the chute for engine failure is a standard operating procedure recommended and approved by Cirrus?

from the POH

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.

So I guess where we differ is

a) On the interpretation of a safe landing area.
b) On risk of hitting and injuring someone on the ground.

other than that we pretty much both positive about having BRS on board:)

007helicopter
27th Jun 2012, 17:30
Would there be a market for this, after all surely this would then kill the debate, what would you rather have a BRS or an extra engine when flying over mountains or water?

The OP asked the question above, this has been an interesting debate but in the exact scenario he suggests I think an extra engine would be more desirable and useful in the event of purely engine failure.

But not a lot of use in many other scenarios which happen all to often, loss of control for what ever reason.

Maoraigh1
27th Jun 2012, 20:41
A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

Pace
27th Jun 2012, 20:58
Maoraigh1

That is part of the reason I am concerned when some in this thread regard the chute as an answer to all ills.
Without doubt there are benefits I question its use for a straight engine failure or in anything where you still have a flyable aircraft albeit a glider.
Once the chute is pulled you no longer have a flyable aircraft and become a passenger to wherever the aircraft takes you.
a strong wind and you will still get the 30 mph crash but whatever is chosen for you rather than what you choose.
Unlike some here who quote the 35 odd landings I do not see this as any reflection on the fact that there is a strong likelihood that someone on the ground will be killed by a cirrus in the future especially with a vertical or near vertical descent into a heavy built up area.

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.


The Cirrus advice posted above is hardly an endorsement of using the chute for engine failure but for using it as a last resort after conventional forced landings techniques do not look good especially regarding terrain and even then they refer to "maybe required".
Cirrus would without doubt open themselves up to massive claims if under their advice a chute was deployed killing people in a built up area which could have been glided clear of with normal engine failure techniques and control of a flying aircraft.

Really beware of the chute it is an answer to some of the problems not all and needs using with caution as does the false sense of security it gives flying into weather or conditions neither the pilot or aircraft are up to.

NB snag the chute on your way down the mountain side and you will fall like a rock with neither aircraft control or a deployed chute.

Pace

abgd
27th Jun 2012, 21:24
I'm not quite certain what terrain you have in mind when you're concerned about them not working on a slope? Hang-glider pilots parachute onto windswept hillsides frequently, and whilst being dragged along has its dangers, it's generally survivable. Most things are survivable at 20mph, though perhaps not being dragged off the edge of a cliff.

In any case, you could glide to the center of the valley, then either land or open the parachute. Any reasonably wide valley should give you the option of not landing on a cliff-edge.

The only person I know personally who's used an emergency parachute was a hang-glider pilot who was aerotowing in Florida. She landed in an alligator-infested swamp and got an open tibial fracture. The deployment had been accidental - something caught on the parachute handle and yanked it accidentally.

007helicopter
27th Jun 2012, 21:43
A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

Sorry Maoraigh1 but this accident is about the worst example I can imagine of someone not using the BRS Chute, this was not a forced landing but some bloke who survived CFIT, he was crossing the Rocky Mountains, at night, crap weather, tried to divert, could not see the runway, went around and flew into the mountain side, 16500ft in an SR20 not good let alone these conditions (as I recall he had his young son on board) an absolute disgrace and I would say a complete idiot who should never have set off in those conditions.

I can dig out the report if anyone interested and my comments are from memory.

Your post gives the opinion that it might be a good idea to try this, and uses this accident as an example of success as if decision making process and skill was the reason for success , with a BRS equiped aircraft I frankly think this would be total and utter madness but each to their own. Maybe in a Maule or cub or something but in a Cirrus in mountains or totally inhospitable terrain pull the damn chute.

007helicopter
27th Jun 2012, 22:03
I do not see this as any reflection on the fact that there is a strong likelihood that someone on the ground will be killed by a cirrus in the future especially with a vertical or near vertical descent into a heavy built up area.

Pace I made the point in your specific example at 1000ft on take off, that is my choice and not Cirrus SOP, so I assume you are referring to my preference in this scenario you gave, I assume over the last decade hundreds of people have been injured on the ground with light aircraft crashes (just a guess)

following the several hundred BRS chute pulls, No one, ZERO has been injured on the ground, the next one will be the first, sure it has to happen eventually but the risk is irrelevant based on history.

Equally I imagine there are few pulls over built up areas (I know of one) hopefully they are rare as generally you can glide to a better area which I would do if sufficient altitude where no one has been injured.

If insufficient altitude for whatever reason my opinion is less risk to those on the ground and those on board by using the Chute.

abgd
27th Jun 2012, 23:12
Well, fairly shortly when a pilot suffers an engine failure, he need only press the alarm button and the autopilot will take over, flying the Cirrus upwind of the most suitable landing area in the vicinity using google map and GPS. It will then compare GPS with the pitot input to work out the windspeed at its current altitude, and computational fluid dynamics and a terrain database to work out what the wind gradient will be all the way down.

When the autopilot has positioned the aircraft at exactly the right spot, it will activate the BRS parachute and the wind will carry you to within a few yards of your predetermined landing spot - perhaps a tennis court or the roof of a skyscraper where you will touch down safely with minimal risk to anyone on the ground.

I'm being slightly facetious, but I see no reason why it isn't possible, apart from probably needing a park rather than a tennis court.

Aggressive Maneuvers for Autonomous Quadrotor Flight - YouTube

The only connection being the ridiculous stunts that computers can pull.

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 00:56
A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

This is precisely the scenario when I would pull. In 2004 an SR20 chute pull happened at night over the Canadian Rockies with the plane coming down on a steep slope. I wish I could find pictures. The plane slid a little on the slope but radioed an airliner for help. The plane was eventually lifted out by the chute straps. A video with the pilot and his grandson shows just a little but doesn't really give a good picture of how rugged the terrain there is. Testimonial - Cirrus Save - YouTube (http://youtu.be/4IS2EL3rEms)

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 01:13
Sorry for the sales pitch video. It was the only thing I could find. At one time there were great photos online of this accident site.

The was also an ABC news report saying people on the ground may have been saved during another chute pull since they got out of the way as the plane descended. The link is no longer good unfortunately.

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 01:29
Maoraigh1 - If you are talking about the Kremmling, CO accident then the pilot was very lucky. There was a great analysis of this accident in IFR magazine where it points out the need to brief the missed. The SR20 couldn't meet the climb requirements for the missed of the GPS approach. The VOR approach would have been better. I have flown that area and there is slow rising terrain after the runway ends. Hmm, IFR in storms in an SR20 in the Rockies at night. One lucky pilot. The pilot didn't pull because he was trying to land but never saw the runway (forgot to turn on the lights?) and was going missed.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 10:19
If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.

Paul

Going by Cirrus recommendation no mention is made of using the chute as a standard procedure for engine failure.
I actually wonder at the insurance implications of knowingly writing off an aircraft which is perfectly flyable by pulling the chute when there are suitable landing sites below using conventional methods?
Writing off the Cirrus under a chute in a field the size of Heathrow would I am sure raise some eyebrows and many questions?
Especially if using a chute as a standard engine failure procedure did not have Cirrus blessing and recommendation.
The chute method is understandable over areas which do not offer suitable forced landing sites and that includes built up areas where gliding clear is not possible.
Having said that I have moved my opinion slightly towards the benefits of the chute but would not consider the chute as a standard recovery method for any engine failure without Cirrus placing that advice in black and white as part of a SOP.
One thing that has come clear is that pilots of singles need to take every opportunity of practicing forced landings even if it is onto the runway so they are comfortable with the judgments needed in the event of the real thing.
A lot more needs to be done on field selection and identification of hazards and an even greater amount on multi tasking and spatial awareness.

Someone needs to write to Cirrus for an opinion before teaching the use of the chute in the manner suggested here as even as a school or instructor you are open to liability implications by teaching or suggesting such methods if not rubber stamped by Cirrus.


Pace

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 11:30
Pace - You bring up a good point which has been discussed with several insurance companies. First, while Cirrus claims the plane will be totaled (legal reasons?) several aircraft have been repaired and returned to service. Even when the outcome is good for the passengers, off airport landings often result in significant damage to planes like a Cirrus. The speed, weight and small tires change the odds compared to a Piper Cub. The attitude of the insurance companies has been interesting. One said "We want you alive so we can insure your next plane." in general the companies seem more worried about passenger injuries compared to airframe cost. BRS has an excellent record of leaving passengers in good shape.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 11:40
Paul

But then you have to get a definative response from Cirrus. It is all very good stating how good the chute is and all the safety benefits in all scenarios but Cirrus write the manuals. Once Cirrus state their opinion you can teach and train to that opinion and the buck stops with Cirrus.
Until then all you have is the wishy washy recommendation from Cirrus obviously covering their back.

Pace

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 11:44
An "interesting" exercise would be to select suitable fields from the air. It would need to be done at a reasonable altitude since down low means the decision is made for you. Pick one when 4000' AGL. Land, drive there, and ask the owner to let you drive your car on the field at 100 kph. This will be a best case scenario due to much larger tires on the car and much lower likelihood the front tires of the car will dig in and flip the vehicle but interesting all the same.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 12:05
Paul

100kph? Thought we talked in Kts ;)
Like it or not how the chute is used should be recommended by Cirrus as that is where the insurance companies will run to when they do not want to pay out.
All is fine with insurance companies until they have a major claim then make sure all Is are dotted! Otherwise they will dot them for you! Aircraft destroyed method not recommended or backed by manufacturer??? Perfectly flyable aircraft by a properly trained pilot needlessly destroyed by pulling a chute in a situation not recommended by the manufacturer and against their operating procedures.

Let me give you a scenario without manufacturer backing. Pilot X took off and climbing away from the runway passing 1500 feet lost all power.
Pilot X had recieved training where he was told in all engine failure situations to avoid a forced landing and use the chute as a SOP.
Below was a large field which pilot X felt comfortable he could land in but no his instructors told him to use the chute.
Pilot X pulled the chute and at first all was going well. Across the field were high power cables the aircraft descended into the cables collapsing the chute.
The aircraft then fell vertically to the ground Killing the passengers.
Recovering from his injuries pilot X attended the court and explained that he felt he was capable of having landed into the field but had pulled the chute as that was what he was taught in his training.
The training company were asked where they got that recommendation from? Not from Cirrus! Who would be sued?


Pace

Fuji Abound
28th Jun 2012, 15:01
Pace - I had largely backed out of this discussion but I am genuinely concerned at the line you are taking.

I said earlier we must all live in the real world; forgive me I am not sure you are. It is no good judging this through your experienced eyes. There are pilots who fly the minimum number of hours a year - they are legal, and they are entitled to do just that. There are pilots with a few hundred hours to their credit - they are legal. There are pilots (many) that will make a pretty ham fisted effort at a forced landing - there are many, I know! There are plenty of these pilots that read this forum and doubtless a few that fly Cirrus or other aircraft with chutes.

You may well say they should be better at FLs, be more current or whatever, but in the real world they are not and nor will they be. I repeat, they are legal and the law considers they are fit to act in command.

Cirrus recognise that one of the most important skills a pilot must exercise is judgement. I really don't think pilots should be coerced into not using the chute by reading this thread. Its not a man thing, and their is no disgrace in using the chute, but it could well be a life and death decision. Rightly or wrongly I reckon for many the outcome will be better with the chute in most situations than without.

So I am sure that its not where you are coming from but I genuinely think there is a real danger in making anyone feel perhaps they should resort to a conventional forced landing when for whatever reason there judgement would have been to the contrary.

Sillert,V.I.
28th Jun 2012, 16:11
... but I genuinely think there is a real danger in making anyone feel perhaps they should resort to a conventional forced landing when for whatever reason there judgement would have been to the contrary.

Yes, and from an insurance perspective I think the equivalent of the Strasser scheme is needed - in other words, whatever choice the pilot chooses to make shouldn't have any bearing on the subsequent position taken by the insurers, thus removing at least some of the financial considerations from the decision making process.

I can imagine many circumstances in which the decision would not be straightforward and I wouldn't want to pass judgment on anyone who found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to make the call.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 16:52
Fuji
If you read my last post you would see that I actually state that I have shifted my position a little mainly in areas where I accept the chute could be used!
We have discussed issues with having the chute where inexperienced or pilots lacking currency could be lured into situations purely by having the confidence in having the chute where they have to use it.
We have discussed potential collateral damage that pulling the chute over a built up area rather than gliding clear could have on innocent parties!
Finally we have discussed insurance issues? And getting Cirrus to back what has been suggested ? Ie using the chute as a standard engine failure Procedure.
I would have thought that was a vital prerequisite to any standard procedure ? Acknowledgement and acceptance by the manufacturer.
On top of that for those who feel they are lacking in basic skills I suggested honing those skills so they are more confident.
For speaking that truth and asking sensitive questions I get attacked.
Who is blindly sticking their heads in the sand ?
You maybe right I am not that arrogant to say your not ! The chute maybe the safest option in engine failure with the mix of pilot capability but then get the manufacturer to back that stance and before you knock me too much remember the majority of low time pilots do not have the luxury of that choice and face a forced landing like it or not !
The proportion of Cirrus drivers compared to aircraft without a chute recovery system is minute! What advice do you give them?

Pace

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 19:31
There have been many chute pulls. There hasn't been an issue with the insurance companies. Even though a couple of the pulls were questionable (my opinion) the insurance companies seem more afraid of discouraging the use of BRS. Any death usually results in maximum payout from the insurer. That seems to be what they want to avoid. If you look at the accident record there are a lot more cases of "Why didn't he?" than of "Why did he?"

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 19:46
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.

Pace

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 19:47
Pace --

100kph? Thought we talked in Kts

You must have the only car I know of that is marked in knots. My car is in mph but since you live in a more enlightened country I used kph.

As for the scenario you mentioned you have a good imagination. It is all about likelihood. Imagine doing a forced landing and hitting someone (like the Lancair hitting the guy running on the beach) and then being asks why you didn't pull and come down in a way where people could avoid you. The fact is that there have been numerous uses of BRS and I don't know of one instance of a person on the ground being injured.

The thing about the BRS system is that it is an adder. It is one more thing available. Your argument about being sued over choice is no different than being sued because you chose emergency landing spot A over B and A resulted in someone getting injured.

You seem to think that all FL's turn out great. I think the data is that about 80% are survived but of that 80% there are many with severe injuries.

You also seem to think that FL's don't injure people on the ground. Where I live a person in a car was killed by a plane making an emergency landing on the road the car was on.

BRS is no magic bullet. Pilots still need to maintain the ability to do a good FL. I am just surprised at the resistance of the flying community to another tool at their disposal.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 19:55
Paul we are not talking about another option! This thread has been built around the chute now being advised for ANY engine failure not as an extra safety option which I welcome.
I still ask if it is so good and bulletproof compared to a forced landing why cannot you get Cirrus to endorse its use in the way many here are advocating.
I remind you of the Cirrus official position.

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.


Again the chute is being recommended as a last resort failing a suitable landing area being located not as a primary means of dealing with engine failure.
I am not your problem in your quest you need to get Cirrus on board!! One poster here is so convinced that he claims he will use the chute as a primary recovery system from any engine failure over green fields or busy city centre! That itself is worrying? And why? Because he has no confidence in a forced landing! Something is very wrong somewhere?

Pace

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 20:21
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.

Because life is grey. Pilot skill level varies. Situations vary. Being over a paved runway is different than being over rugged mountains. The attitude of Cirrus seems to be that BRS is one more thing for the pilot to consider based on his particular situation. As data from its use has built up I will say more and more members of COPA (where this is heavily discussed) are leaning towards pulling if it will be off airport. Why are you insisting that the manufacturer tell you what to do as a pilot?

paulp
28th Jun 2012, 20:26
In case anyone is curios here (http://av.vimeo.com/17853/931/62293351.mp4?token=1340916142_45dc2d4b357198f041432791de5047 1e) is an interesting presentation by Rick Beach on data regarding the Cirrus BRS system. Rick does NOT represent Cirrus Aircraft. He has made it his mission to look deeply into every Cirrus accident and this has resulted in him being strongly opinionated on the subject. It is an interesting presentation with real world operational data. Some of this has been taken from the data stored by the avionics which on a Cirrus is quite extensive. Since the plane stays pretty much intact after a pull, this data has been recoverable and allowed analysis including deceleration and descent rate in real world use.

abgd
28th Jun 2012, 20:37
Because life is grey. Pilot skill level varies. Situations vary. Being over a paved runway is different than being over rugged mountains. The attitude of Cirrus seems to be that BRS is one more thing for the pilot to consider based on his particular situation. As data from its use has built up I will say more and more members of COPA (where this is heavily discussed) are leaning towards pulling if it will be off airport. Why are you insisting that the manufacturer tell you what to do as a pilot?

+1... Cirrus should only specify the data on when the parachute will come out, and the descent rate. Things that you can take into account when deciding on your course of action.

The other thing people talk about here is the shame of destroying a perfectly good aircraft. What proportion of forced landings result in the destruction of the aircraft, I wonder?

I get the impression that quite a high proportion of forced landings destroy the aircraft even if the pilot can walk away. At least a few cirruses have been refurbished after accidents.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 20:39
Why are you insisting that the manufacturer tell you what to do as a pilot?

Paul come on? I do not believe you said that!! I normally fly jets as a Captain.
If we get a problem I immediately go to the emergency checklist where the manufacturer tells me what to do.
I am sure you have a manufacturer flight manual which also tells you what to do?

Pace

Fuji Abound
28th Jun 2012, 20:46
Pace come on you surely know why. America is the most litigeous place on earth. One of their motor manufacturers got taken to court for not saying "you must not leave the drivers seat with cruise control engaged".

If the engine fails one thing is for certain - you will land. As we have discussed the chute is not there for every circumstance or for every two buck lawyer to run the argument that the outcome would have been different without the chute.

Bottom line is if the chute goes wrong someone will have a pop at the pilot for pulling it. The converse is how about having a pop at the pilot for not pulling it when the FL goes wrong. There are two options, neither offers a guaranteed outcome, neither can, because lady luck will always have a part to play.

Thats why it is for the pilot to decide and rightly so. If the chute provided a guarantee cirrus would say othwise, it doesnt and no one has said otherwise.

Pace
28th Jun 2012, 20:57
Fuji

I hope you do not think I am bashing either you or Paul or Heli?
I do think this goes away from conventional thinking to such an extent that it warrants discussion. As I said Cirrus drivers are a Tiny proportion of the total pilot population who do not have the luxury of pulling a chute but have to rely on their skills or lack of skills in pulling off a forced landing.
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion :E
Between you and me I would love a share in a Cirrus with the Chute :)

Pace

007helicopter
28th Jun 2012, 21:56
On top of that for those who feel they are lacking in basic skills I suggested honing those skills so they are more confident.

Pace, I think the only person you suggested that to was myself, can I be really clear here as I did not respond properly earlier.

I do NOT feel I lack the basic skills, I do NOT lack confidence, I have made an informed judgement that in general on an off airport landing in a Cirrus my chances of survival of myself and my passengers is greater if I use BRS.

Reaching a suitable field is the easy part, once touching down and not having a further incident is the tricky part with many examples of death and botched landings due to flipping and hitting things due to an unknown surface.

Put a Cirrus down in a crop, boggy field or hit a tree stump at the speed required to land and you have a reasonable chance of hurting yourself and PAX.

In a helicopter I regularly do practice forced landings with no engine power to the ground, because this is the only option. This takes a certain amount of skill and confidence so please do not make out that this is my reason for using the BRS chute as a cop out to a forced landing , it is not.

007helicopter
28th Jun 2012, 22:03
I do think this goes away from conventional thinking to such an extent that it warrants discussion. As I said Cirrus drivers are a Tiny proportion of the total pilot population who do not have the luxury of pulling a chute but have to rely on their skills or lack of skills in pulling off a forced landing.
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion

And I think an excellent opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, earlier I said my stance and openly expected 95% on this forum would not agree with it, in the Cirrus community there is equally if not more heated debate on when and why to use the the Chute, so it carries a certain amount of controversy as well as old wives tails.

Traditional aircraft have no option and traditional pilots are trained with no other option in mind so there is a strong mindset of do not be a wimp, do not believe the marketing, blah blah the chute is for those without the skill or confidence who got them selves into trouble.

007helicopter
28th Jun 2012, 22:15
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual?

Pace I have a theory but can not speak for Cirrus or anyone else, the manual was written 5000 planes ago and around 10+ years, at the time there was no precedent or much experience with the BRS system in a production aircraft.

Now with millions of flight hours and 80 odd fatal incidents I as a Pilot can make an informed decision for myself on how to best use this technology, which I have done and set myself my own SOP.

I do not know if Cirrus ever intend to modify the manual and likewise I do not understand or especially care how they need to cover their backs in a litigious world, I care about my own and pax safety and chances of survival.

007helicopter
28th Jun 2012, 22:34
One poster here is so convinced that he claims he will use the chute as a primary recovery system from any engine failure over green fields or busy city centre! That itself is worrying? And why? Because he has no confidence in a forced landing! Something is very wrong somewhere?

Pace for clarity of the debate I am ok with your concerns, but again stress my choice is nothing to do with confidence.

Why is it worrying and what is very wrong?

Even if I had an equal chance of survival using the chute compared to a forced landing, what is the problem?

Do you think I have less chance of survival if I use the chute compared to landing in a small filed with a few trees and hedges?

In my opinion I (and you) have a greater chance of survival using the chute than a forced off airport landing. Out of 100 each we would both likely get a few horribly wrong. Maybe me more than you, maybe not.

I also do not think I said any engine failure and 100% I would us the chute, but certainly where I can not be totally confident with the landing surface I would, this is my own personal SOP.

Fuji Abound
28th Jun 2012, 23:20
Pace - i dont for one moment think you are bashing us. Its interesting to have a robust discussion and as always you have made some very good points which have certainly challenged me. I hope you dont think i have done so to you either?

In short we are all still friends! ;)

As i said earlier it is the uncertainty that causes the problem.

Whatever the pilot decides its going to be pretty difficult for the best advocate to prove the contrary position would have secured a better outcome so at least in that much you have a sound defense.

If you walk away from any fl with minor injury of less and no collateral damage in my book you have done a good job, its all that matters, the aircraft can be rebuilt or bought again.

If i landed with the chute outside this criteria i'd say it was bl@@@@ bad luck, but if i attempted a fl that proved to be a failure i would have to accept by your definition it was my fault unless of course you are willing to concede under chute on average the outcome is likely to be better. ;)

paulp
29th Jun 2012, 00:32
Pace - Does your checklist tell you what field to land in or how to select it? When Sullenberger decided to ditch in the Hudson did the checklist tell him that was the best decision or was he trained to evaluate his choices and then take appropriate action? If I decide to use CAPS then there is a checklist for that. If I decide to do an engine out landing then there is a checklist for that too.

As an aside, since we are talking engine out scenarios, a new technology available in the experimental market is one which uses the AP to place the plane in best glide, take it to the closest suitable airport and glide it down to 200' above the runway. That's nothing a great pilot can't do but I have messed up my speed management when descending engine out from 5000' over the runway such that I am willing to admit a computer could do it better. In an emergency, I think I'll go with best chance at a great outcome instead of most macho pilot award.

Pace
29th Jun 2012, 07:37
Going back to the original question concerning twins. In a single engine failure you are going down. Twins give you the Option to stay up sadly pilots often do not handle that option too well.
With more options come more choices with more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice and I am sure the chute fits the same principal.
Over a built up area do you pull the chute or do you head for that grassy field in the distance? Will you make that field in the distance ?its a windy day! Do you pull the chute and get slammed at 30 mph into a building or do you use that wind to reduce your ground speed by 30 mph in a forced landing? I will look forward to owning a Cirrus as I think the chute holds a number of safety benefits which will save your life.
For force landing gadgets I could more see a garmin type function which displays a glide slope which will show you where you will land in any given direction! Not sure how the shuttle system worked as they keep landing at Luton airport with red faces :E

Going back to manufacturers yes Fuji the USA and Europe are both riddled with stupid liability claims. It used to be the USA now its Europe too.
But that can work both ways. If Cirrus are advising use of the chute as secondary to finding a suitable off airport landing strip and then with a caveat to consider using the chute if such a site does not exist!
Then that is hardly a rubber stamping of the chute to be used for all engine failures.
Lets now imagine that overwhelming evidence points to the fact that you are far safer pulling the chute than attempting a conventional forced landing.
Cirrus would then be forced to amend their engine failure procedures for fear of being seen as negligent for not stipulating the use of the chute.
Paul yes we do have manufacturer flight manuals which tell us what to do and what procedures to follow.
They cannot cover every situation and that comes down to good old fashioned Airmanship, judgement, currency, spatial awareness and skill.
All the things which you both are claiming the pilots of today do not have hence the need for the chute.


Pace