Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12 [Archive]

Contacttower

24th Jul 2012, 09:57

Very true but I suspect that the type will eventually be priced out of the market by insurance costs.

I've heard differing things about insurance companies attitudes to the Cirrus; in the UK in light of the now infamous incident in which someone apparently pulled the chute after a brief venture into IMC they appear to be somewhat nervous about the skill level of pilots that might prompt them to pull the chute on a perfectly flyable plane.

In the US however I've heard that actually on the whole the insurance companies would rather keep the pilot as a customer than have them die... So it seems to cut both ways from an insurance point of view...considering how common the Cirrus is, especially in the US, a slightly doubt it's ever going to be uninsurable though.

With regard to this particular crash; I'm all for speculation and looking at the aerial shot I don't think the area looks great for a forced landing, certainly not one in which the plane would be less damaged than by pulling the chute. Yes there are lots of fields but they aren't very big (for reference the runway is 1500m I believe) and there are lots of trees and houses in the way. Although obviously if one pulls the chute there is the risk of hitting a house/tree once you are falling but you are probably less likely to be injured descending under the chute and hitting something then hitting something going forwards at flying speed.

what next

24th Jul 2012, 10:03

Very true but I suspect that the type will eventually be priced out of the market by insurance costs. And all of us will be paying increased premiums.

One single casualty (with a good lawyer fighting for his/her relatives in the US) will cost the insurers much more than a whole fleet of damaged Cirruses. If the insurers were smart, they would install a parachute in every single and light twin for free.
Anyway, money should be the least important consideration when making decisions in an emergency. Safety first. I, too, would have pulled that handle. I wish I had one of those on every aircraft I fly.

piperboy84

24th Jul 2012, 10:05

Very true but I suspect that the type will eventually be priced out of the market by insurance costs. And all of us will be paying increased premiums.

Not sure about that one MJ, I would hazard a guess and say the majority of the insurance payouts are to passenger crash victims, their heirs or people/property on the ground as opposed to hull replacement in a successful BRS deployment at least in the US. If chutes reduce this then surely that would reflect in reduced insurance premiums. Also, perhaps the increased number of crash survivors due to BRS will reduce the manufacturers product liability and lawyer costs which accounts for a significant percentage of the price of a new plane and has caused manufacturers like Piper etc. to cease production in the past and discouraged others from commencing design and production.

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 10:16

Whilst these debates are interesting and give food for thought, I certainly would not give two thingy's what anyone thought of my actions, or what their views of a more appropriate action were, if I pulled and got it on the ground and all walked away.

I personally find it difficult to fault a decision that results in all walking away. To do so when offering alternative actions with such limited knowledge is....................!

BB

VP-F__

24th Jul 2012, 10:18

I am not sure how long the cirrus aircraft have been flying around with the CAPS system but 31 activations in an aircraft not as numerous as the C172/PA28 types seems to be rather high and suggests that it is used as an easy way out option. Are there many cases of the SR22 actually pulling off any landings away from an airfield when in trouble?

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 10:38

All fair points. Especially the US take on the insurance liability.

Must admit I used to fly and teach in similar topography so to me it looks pretty good for someone in a PA38/C172 at least. Never had to do a forced landing in anger mind but there have been a few in the area and all of the survived.

It is quite interesting though the views.

So what is the average profile of someone that pulls the chute?

And what is the profile of someone that doesn't and has a fatal?

172driver

24th Jul 2012, 10:47

There is no question that in dozens of incidents to date CAP's has turned a smoking hole with dead bodies accident into one where everyone walked away and in many instances where the aircraft was repaired and continues to fly on.

From a pure self interest point of view, anything that cuts down on the screaming "light airplane disaster at XXX" headlines is a good thing.

But at a more human level I am dismayed that some posters seem to be comfortable that death
is an appropriate penalty for recreational/non professional pilots that suffer a skill deficit under high stress situations.

I guess they know their superior skills and steely nerves will always allow them to deal with any emergency and so they will never lower themselves to consider use a device that will pretty much guarantee a survivable return to earth in the event of a significant emergency

BPF, we disagree on some things, but this post is 100% spot on :D:D

I just fail to comprehend the general luddite UK attitude, especially in a demographic - pilots - who should normally embrace technology. Beats me....

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 11:00

We do embrace technology.

Just don't sell our souls and jump in with both feet when the latest thing comes out.

We also don't forget hard learned lessons from the past and in some ways we do also appreciate the basic skills as an art. If you can survive without the use of technology when said technology fails you still have options.

Currently it seems to me that at the moment a great bit of technology is being hampered by a few that are not using it in the most approprate way.

To add some of it may be the way alot of us were trained. We got it hammered into us that you never give up ever. And pulling that handle means you have.

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 11:05

So what is the average profile of someone that pulls the chute?

And what is the profile of someone that doesn't and has a fatal?

Interesting questions, indeed, but only out of interest and to help in training.

Any such stats available?

When things go tits up the number one objective is to maximise the chances of survivability, most other considerations are irrelevant unless the chances of pulling them off are very favourable and do not compromise the chances of survivability.

BB

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 11:07

And pulling that handle means you have. (given up)

And therein lies the problem (my bold)!

BB

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 11:26

To be fair the chute does give you a final option and I will fully admit that in some of the crashes, the fact the pilot hasn't given up and used the chute could of stopped the crash being fatal.

To me the whole thing is a very interesting discussion on pilot thought processes. I am not anti the chute by any means.

Its very similar in my view to the teaching of spinning. Alot out there will say its paramount and unacceptable not to teach it and it would save lives.
When in actuality the accidents stats pretty robustly prove that more people are killed teaching it than it saves. Maybe pulling the chute will be statistically the best option. At least it will insure a constant replacement of aircraft so we don;t have 30 year old ****e heaps to put up with :D

My own personal view on spinning is that its a skill which is acceptable to leave out of primary training but after a broader experence base is gained its advisable to revisit beyond the previous avoidance training. But it should be done by an instructor who is competent to teach it. I did used to spin with students but now will freely admit looking back I wasn't competent to teach spinning.

Fuji Abound

24th Jul 2012, 11:33

Yet another of these threads.

What worries me is when clearly intelligent people run off the same arguments again and again without I presume any knowledge of the facts.

We dont know, or at least I certainly dont, the circumstances surrounding this pull so how it can be assumed the pilot gave up or resorted to the chute before considering other options escapes me?

Moreover, as another poster commented, are we seriously chastising a pilot for pulling the chute knowing so little. Some of us may well have thought there were other options and some of us may well have thought we were sufficiently current to land in a field but we werent flying the aircraft, were we? The chap who was may have been less current and less comfortable. I have no idea how regular he flew, but if you are going to ban people from being in command if they have only flown a few hours in the last 90 days you had better let EASA and the FAA know first. Like it or not GA probably wouldnt exist if we required every pilot to be as current as some on here would have.

Fact is a forced landing is an emergency and even for those current it can go horribly wrong. As we have discussed before you dont know what you might impact (even in that innocent looking field); the outcome is not certain. On the other hand the record under chute is astonishingly good.

I know, I know it presents another problem. Should the chute be the first resort? The trouble is when you attempt that forced landing ignoring the chute and it goes horribly wrong do you spend the rest of your life thinking what if?

yawningdog

24th Jul 2012, 11:33

Judging by the interview footage (a previous pilot), it sounds like the chute was pulled after a stall/spin situation. So, in all probability, the pilot was trying to make a field but couldn't stretch the glide.

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 11:38

MJ, so why do you see pulling as giving up? What is it giving up, certainly not the will to live.

To, as you put it:

never give up ever

would necessitate there always being a guaranteed favourable outcome, this is clearly not the case, therefore giving up trying to put it on the ground and pulling is in fact a sensible option when other options have run out.

The difficult question is in determining when that point is.

But it should be done by an instructor who is competent to teach it

Nail on the head with this one! I don't know the reason for accidents in spin training, however your above statement could be an influencing factor.

BB

Sigurd

24th Jul 2012, 11:39

MJock – there is an awful lot of info on the COPA website re when to pull and when not to. Bottom line is that CAPS could and should have saved many, many more lives if people had had enough awareness to pull the chute earlier. I think your “giving up” is the wrong term, pulling CAPS at the right time/occasion can demonstrate as much airmanship as a well executed forced landing. The more people that acknowledge this, the more lives will be saved.

Good post BPF:D

I wish I had BPS.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 11:55

MJ, so why do you see pulling as giving up? What is it giving up, certainly not the will to live.

Exactly its a new concept to add into the equation.

Alot of us, well everyone that doesn't have a chute the only thing that is going to save us is our handling and decision making skills. Its a bit of a fundemental change in philosophy. And one that I don't think has matured in its application.

As I have said I am more than willing to accept that eventually it may become the norm to pull that handle if it gets a wee bit scary. We may get to that stage in my life time.

Personally I would object to all the extra fuel you burn carrying one about. But then again I have survived so far without one and I doudt very much if I will ever fly anything which would be so equiped. But in the grand scale of things I am a pro pilot but no sky god, relatively high hours compared to most GA and extremely current flying in a none autopilot twin but not so in a SEP.

I will promise though if I bite the bullet in a tommy I will have on my grave "they were right about those sodding chutes"

And realistically in the UK there will be less than 50 instructors that are truely competent to teach spinning. There will be a load out there that can patter it while doing a normal one which is what I used to do. But to actually deal with it when it goes wrong very few and most of them will be ex mil.

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 12:06

Personally I would object to all the extra fuel you burn carrying one about.

Surely your life is worth more than a bit of fuel?:confused:

You could always go for the other option of leaving the beer alone to lose a percentage of the weight and make up the difference in fuel costs through saving the beer money?:p:p

BB

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 12:25

What a supid idea leaving the beer/cider out.

You will be saying that deep fried haggis in curry sauce and chips is also out.

Well to be honest my own personal risk assesment of the dangers versus cost is that its not worth the fuel. Yes for some it may very well be worth the extra. The way I operate/flight profile hopefully will provide more of a defense against a fatal accident than a chute.

I am up to 7 pilots that I have known that have been killed in GA aircraft. 6 of them definately wouldn't have been saved (CFIT and midair) and one of them nobody has a clue what happened. I know loads though that have had a bum clencher that have remained alive by not giving up and staying calm and applying basic pilot skills to sort things out.

It is nearly always the pilot that causes the accident by either mishandling or poor decision making. The chute I will admit is a solution to this problem.

Then there is that fateful day when your time is up and the all the cards are against you no matter how current experenced you are.

strake

24th Jul 2012, 12:26

I would consider the Cirrus 'chute to be similar to a reserve for a skydiver.

The instruction for a parachutist is very simple. If you have a problem with your main, try to deal with it. The very instant you realise you can't deal with it, panic sets in or you have any doubt whatsoever, get rid of it and pull your reserve - that's what it is there for.

Without doubt, no matter the reasons why, if I was in a similar situation in a Cirrus, I'd pull the reserve - end of.
Afterwards, people could argue why they would or wouldn't have done similar, I probably wouldn't care.
The stupid thing would be to die in crash and have people ask "Why didn't he pull the handle..?"

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 12:54

To add the first article that I read said they had started at 9000ft and then another one said they had deployed when trying to stretch the glide to get into the airport.

Quite a common issue with student pilots is a engine failure at altitude. They can bang the PFL in time and time again from 1000-2000ft. 5k plus way to many options even if you do it in the training area which they know like the back of thier hands.

On reading the 9000ft comment my thought was that it was a "nearest direct" with no thought about all those fields going underneith. They must of been flying for over 10 mins and covered over 10 miles.

I think it was BPF or DAR has said somewhere else its the partial engine failures that give the most problems not the out right engine failures. Personally if the sod starts giving me grief it would get treated as failed and a forced landing commenced. Trying to glide over ten miles away is never going to work. If the runway was inside 5 miles yep have a shot at it.

007helicopter

24th Jul 2012, 12:54

I understand the Pilot was a CSIP (An instructor who has done the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Program) if that is the case I am reasonably sure he weighed up all options and in his mind chose the best.

Mad Jock those fields look pretty appalling to me, landing at 70 knots under extreme pressure and 4 up there is I would guess a 50 / 50 chance of writing off the plane and having some serious injuries if not fatal's, that's if you got it in the field and were lucky enough to avoid all the trees and rocks.

Well done the Pilot for taking a good decision.:ok:

As for giving up the Beer and Cider I agree that would be ridiculous.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 13:07

Depends what you are used to 007.

Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.

Much better than the scottish loch, peat bog, xmas tree plantation or land rover track that were my options mostly.

10mins from 9k gives you a whole heap of distance and energy to get a good one.

And the other thing is that some pilots are extremely reluctant to shut an engine down. We get this in twins. A CSP produces more drag than a feathered one at low power settings or should I say production which completely screws with your performance and in regards to the twin can kill you because it can increase your minimum control speed to above what your Vyse speed is. The rudder runs out of authority and you have drag and one side and full power on the other and she just rolls. So you either have to take some power off which then leaves you in a worse situation than shutting the duff one down you have more drag and less power.

Instructors arn't gods we have all made multiple suspect decisions, which post event we wouldn't do again.

If there was such a lack of options for a forced landing should they even have been flying over the area?

Fuji Abound

24th Jul 2012, 14:30

If there was such a lack of options for a forced landing should they even have been flying over the area?

I dont think it is the lack.

When you have done PFLs how often have you decided at 500 feet you arent quite so keen on what you saw from 2,000 feet?

How often have you driven past a field that you have done PFLs over and thought I am quite pleased I never actually had to land in that field?

I am not saying it doesnt work a lot of the time. I am questioning how easy it is to be certain enough that the field is the best option at 2,000 feet; at 1,000 feet there arent many alternatives in a conventional aircraft, with a chute there is another alternative.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 15:13

Not very often to be honest most of them I didn't like from 2000ft either.

And my knock off height was considerably less than 500ft so the difference between car height and what we could see is virtually nill.

I am not desputing that, but to glide best part of 9000ft down struggling to get on some tarmac isn't really the best option is it?

Basically what you are saying is now that forced landings are a thing of the past for cirrus drivers. I don't have a problem with deciding the chute is the best option from 1000ft if your stuck over a cold lava field. Or your 1000ft and not visual with the ground.

But... In the vast majority of cases a forced landing is not fatal even if the field is the most unsuitable one within 100 miles if the pilot can see it.

BabyBear

24th Jul 2012, 15:26

What a supid idea leaving the beer/cider out.

Aye, was a bit bit, wasn't it!

I know loads though that have had a bum clencher that have remained alive by not giving up and staying calm and applying basic pilot skills to sort things out.

Absolutely right that keeping calm will and does help. I was speaking to a PPL a few weeks back that recently put one down in rough ground and walked away, as did his passenger. His story, however included bits about what he hadn't seen from higher up and could do nothing about when he got close. Plane was written off.

treated as failed and a forced landing commenced

Interesting view, would knowing what lay between you and the airfield not influence your decision?

When you have done PFLs how often have you decided at 500 feet you arent quite so keen on what you saw from 2,000 feet?

Often, and is just what I said above re the guy that recently did it for real.

BB

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 15:29

In the US, insurance is mostly driven by hull value and then by number of seats since that ups the injury liability. A Cirrus carries no premium over other planes.

My rough guess for off airport landings is:

BRS 99% survival 5% plane will fly again
Non-BRS 75% survival 60% plane will fly again

I favor life over property.

Why is the prevailing attitude of many that:
a) The pilot should die trying because he should have trained better
b) The passengers should die because they chose to fly with a poorly trained pilot

Here (http://www.examiner.com/article/two-perish-cirrus-sr22-aircraft-florida-crash) is an off airport landing by a Cirrus flown by a guy who thought the BRS system shouldn't be used if he saw a good field (that according to a friend of his and fellow Cirrus pilot). He had plenty of time. The ATC recordings have him telling ATC his intentions to dead stick it in.

In the case of the chute pull under discussion, ATC recordings have ATC giving the pilot clearance to Pickins County airport, having the trucks roll just in case and when the pilot says he can't make the field acknowledging the pilot's decision to activate BRS.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 15:39

The plane was a write off as other have said so what if everyone walked away. Which to be honest happens alot check the AAIB reports.

Not really because its indecision that kills even if the most piss poor plan implamented correctly will have a better out come than a wait and see what happens. By controlling the situation you dominate it and create least suprises. Its the suprises that kill you, you focus on the job at hand. Trying to go somewhere else you are splitting your attention between are you going to make it, is there a field that we can get into, and in this case should I pull the chute.

Where as if you had just said right engine failure and dropped into your failure drill, alot less options, alot less work and alot more chance of it being successful. Which to be honest most forced landings are even if the airframe is written off which doesn't take much with the plastic aircraft.

I think 75% is a huge under estimation for the survivability rate.

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 16:32

I think 75% is a huge under estimation for the survivability rate.

Maybe but at least with Cirrus aircraft (success is not only pilot but aircraft dependent), success is less than using BRS.

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 16:51

Recently the US NTSB issued a report that broke out safety by type of flying. Most GA statistics mix all GA activities including instruction which has a better overall safety record. The report can be found here (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ARA1101.pdf).

From data broken out by Rick Beach who keeps data on Cirrus flight hours and accidents:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7135532/2677.Cirrus%2520fleet%2520hours%2520vs%2520personal%2520and% 2520business-2011.png-550x0.png

In reviewing the Cirrus accident history,

we have about 1 in 30 airplanes in the GA fleet (about 5,200 vs 155,000 single-engine piston fixed wing aircraft),
yet we are flying about 1 in 10 hours each year and
we experience about 1 in 17 fatal accidents in the past couple of years.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 16:54

Are you sure about that?

HAve you got the figures to back that up.

Because I don't think the true accident figures will confirm your guess.

There are extremely few forced landings ending in a fatality per thousand of hours flown.

That graph is what we are discussing.

If you could get say one of dimonnd aircraft V cirrus you might be in with a shout. But comparing a multi type age range between 0 and 60 year old fleet is not comparing like with like.

In fact for a less than 10 year old aircraft that accident rate is pretty disgusting condidering most cirrus flight profiles will be staying in the relatively safe zone of cruise for the bulk of there hours.

007helicopter

24th Jul 2012, 17:08

Depends what you are used to 007.

Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.

You need to pop down to spec savers, as I said I rate at 70 knots around a 50 / 50 chance of someone in that aircraft would receive serious injuries of death, even if I am grossly out and it is a 90% chance of success, I do not like those odds with my and my pax when a far better and safer option of the chute.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 17:15

stickandrudderman

24th Jul 2012, 17:26

There's not a lot to discuss here.
**** hit the fan, pilot pulled the chute, everyone lived, insurance paid the owner for the aeroplane, owner buys new aeroplane, pilot flies again, armchair dwellers remove knickers and tie them in knots, other armchair dwellers complain that the knot is a reef knot when it should have been a bowline or a sheepshank.
The rest of us get on with our lives.....

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 17:40

Mad_jock: Your comment about cruise hours makes no sense. The last two Cirrus fatals were cross country VFR into IMC scenarios. Do you really think flying the pattern is riskier?

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 17:53

007helicopter

24th Jul 2012, 18:13

What on earth are you trying to do flying at 10 knots over the stall speed while doing a performance landing?

Do you know how much extra energy you having to get rid of by carrying an extra 16% speed?

No wonder you think those fields are tight. Try doing a glide appoach at a more suitable 63knts and see how little runway you require.

Round numbers of ground speed Mad Jock, if you think you are going to come in at perfect stall speed, 4 up as in this crash, fuel weight not known, wind strength and direction not known, under extreme pressure, then I think you are kidding yourself on your skills while under an extremely stressful situation.

Best Glide speed btw is 87-88 knots but that is not relevant to landing or approach speed.

Much better 17 knots vertical speed in the scenario of this accident,

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 19:18

You don't fly a speed, you fly an attitude which doesn't change with weight or any of the others factors you mention. Whats ground speed got to do with it? your in the air.

And yes to those tolerances can be done very easily in fact its not uncommon for 15 hour PPL student to be able to do it.

Maybe a SEP(cirrus) class rating is in order which negates the need for normal piloting/PIC skills. And just has pull the handle for any emergency actions.

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 19:29

You don't fly a speed, you fly an attitude which doesn't change with weight or any of the others factors you mention.

Since you seem to be picky I don't think this is correct. Attitude does change with weight. At a fixed power setting, increasing weight will cause a change in pitch if altitude is to be maintained. As far as a stall is concerned perhaps you mean angle of attack.

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 19:54

Well documented.

The approach, landing and departure phases I think in that order, you are way way more likely to get killed than the enroute phase.

I would have to go and wade through a power point presentation but its something like only 10% of accidents happen in the cruise segment and of that 90% of them are fatal due to crew error and were recoverable.

High and low power settings are when engines are most likely to fail. Round the pattern is when you most likely to get close to both the ground, other aircraft and have to do some piloting **** all high work load. Not suprising its when most accidents occur.

You might take a look at the graph on page 37 of the document I posted the link to. You do have to read between the lines on it a little but I see the breakout as closer to half if you add up the various categories into two types. In looking at Cirrus accidents for 2010 through mid 2011 I do see a lot of takeoff and landing accidents but a lot of them involve bad weather. My point was that planes that are cross country oriented get put in more challenging situations than ones just taken out for a trip around the pattern or a hop 20 miles away.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 20:12

Nope attitude. The picture will always be the same with the engine not working just before the critical angle of attack. You can't see angle of attack you can only see attitude. The resultant airspeed will change with weight (but very little in a GA machine). Works on big things as well when you get 15-20knts across the operational weight band for the approach speeds. Only screws up if you have a increased Vref due to Vcma issues.

Which is why some of us teach a series of pictures for the different stages of flight. Once the pilot has them in there heads they will never get near stall and the ASI is just a bonus to confirm what they know already. Takes quite a bit off the work load if the pilot can just pitch for the best glide speed attitude and then put the ruff required amount of trim in instead of having to focus on the ASI and chase the needle until they get it right. Do you really think instructors look over at the ASI to get the best glide speed when we are demonstrating?

PPL student with all the instruments covered can do a spot on PFL at exactly the right speed in my experence, as long as they have been taught the basics properly.

Again it comes down to the first lessons building the foundation for everything else. Rushed into the circuit or not given enough time to get them understood at the fundemental level and it is with the pilot for life.

007helicopter

24th Jul 2012, 20:35

Whats ground speed got to do with it? your in the air.

Bugger all, we were talking about landing speed in a field, I quoted around 70 Knots which could easily be the case even with someone of your extremely well honed handling ability.

englishal

24th Jul 2012, 20:54

I wasn't there, I didn't pull the handle, I didn't see what lies below. But anyway THE pilot did pull the handle and it was the right decision as 4 people walked away with their lives, virtually unhurt (though I am sure they were prescribed Valium being in the USA). I am sure there are arm chair Skygods out there who would swoop their stricken bird into a nice smooth pasture, and save lives and aircraft and be met with tea and biscuits, but when faced with minutes to make a decision, it is better to make the right decision than faf around. For all we know this pilot is a high time NASA test pilot (MB: Some of them do fly for fun too) or an aerobatics ace and THEY made this decision. So lets get on with life, or rather lets get a life rather than bitch and moan because 4 people survived an aeroplane accident.

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 21:04

Afraid not, I think you need to go flying with an old school instructor preferably ex mil for your hour with an instructor next time.

And I ain't unusual I am afraid. 15 hour ppl students can do it in a clapped out tommy with a crappy sprung trimmer.

paulp

24th Jul 2012, 21:14

Here (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/07/plane-crashes-near-pickens-county.html) are some good pictures of where the aircraft came down.

Contacttower

24th Jul 2012, 21:41

I think the debate about the chute and forced landings is a bit of a dead end. Of course having the chute shouldn't reduce the emphasis on them in training because in the right circumstances a forced landing can be a better option than pulling, if one can see a big flat field or indeed an airport in range then that is probably a better option than surrendering control of the aircraft to the chute. Over bad terrain the balance will fall more the chute's favour. By having both good training and the chute we can make flying even safer. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that this is some sort of 'slippery slope' at the bottom of which is no emergency training at all beyond pulling it...and nor should it be.

In the end the pilot faced with the situation has to decide and without having been in that situation it is impossible to know the exact set of circumstances that he was faced with. By having two options the chances of survival are increased as proved in this case.

What is a far more interesting question, and much more pertinent to the question of what impact the chute has on flight safety is whether it has a physiological impact on pilots in terms of taking risks that they otherwise wouldn't....

mad_jock

24th Jul 2012, 21:50

Its what I was trying to get at contact but as usual didn't put it across well.

And also does the chute effect what would be the normal decision making process.

ie would a pilot choose an option which carried higher risk because the chute was there as backup.

mary meagher

24th Jul 2012, 22:17

The Cirrus pilot who pulled his chute quite near Shenington Gliding Club no doubt saved his bacon, but one certainly has to question his competence. His emergency was entirely self-generated, caused by programming in a 180 degree turn when encountering a bit of IMC, and forgetting to make sure his Cirrus stayed right side up.

I know when I would have been quite happy to have a ballistic recovery chute installed on my light aircraft, and that was in SEP at night....love flying at night over the US of A, such pretty lights, but it does make selecting a suitable field just a tad dodgy.....

Most of us can't afford this sort of equipment, and the craft I usually fly never suffers engine trouble, not having any. So we are quite at ease selecting suitable fields...

How does the Cirrus do, I wonder, when the chute is pulled over open water?

Solar

24th Jul 2012, 23:12

Mary
There was some debate that pulling the chute over water would increase the chance of injury as the undercarrige can not absorb some of the energy.

Big Pistons Forever

24th Jul 2012, 23:47

The Cirrus pilot who pulled his chute quite near Shenington Gliding Club no doubt saved his bacon, but one certainly has to question his competence. His emergency was entirely self-generated, caused by programming in a 180 degree turn when encountering a bit of IMC, and forgetting to make sure his Cirrus stayed right side up.

Absolutely the skill deficit that led to this accident needs to be addressed but the bottom line is clear. Not having the option of pulling the chute meant that this could vary well have ended like so many other unintentional entry into IMC tragedies, a total loss of control leading to a VNE spiral dive and inflight break up.

GA does not need any more dead pilots !

If a chute saves the life of some guy and his family who Facked Up in a major way I say GOOD !

The bigger question IMO is why is the flight training industry not doing a better job at preparing pilots to prevent the purely pilot caused accidents , like carb ice or fuel exhaustion caused engine failures, or the constant drip drip drip of reports of aircraft that run off the end of the runway/wheel barrow/ lose directional control in 5 kt crosswinds etc etc.....

007helicopter

25th Jul 2012, 06:13

How does the Cirrus do, I wonder, when the chute is pulled over open water?

Early Reflections on CAPS Pull #32 by Dick McGlaughlin in the Bahamas - Pull early, pull often! - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2012/01/09/early-reflections-on-caps-pull-32-by-dick-mcglaughlin-in-the-bahamas.aspx)

Mary the most recent over water Chute pull details above and a successful outcome for Father and Daughter.

421C

25th Jul 2012, 09:07

Whilst in general, I'm with Jock about over-reliance on technology and the possibly tenuous airmanship of a few Cirrus pilots
Apologies for the thread drift, but I'd like to pick you and MJ up on this. I have had a bee-in-my-bonnet about this recently.

I attended a UK Instructor refresher seminar recenty for the first time. It was excellently organised and the wealth of experience both amongst presenters and attendees was very high.

There was little or no actual content or discussion that might not have been present 30 years ago or 90 years ago for that matter. Hours were spent on the minutae of various PFL methods. The only mention of new technology was the inevitable remark of "over-reliance" on it and the nodded mumbles of assent from most of the rest of the group.

It's an indictment of a PPL training culture, led from the top of the GA establishment, that seems obsessed with the "standards" to which an obsolete training paradigm of various "exercises" are delivered. If the aim of PPL training was to produce "cadets" flying in the local area in obsolete aircraft under the structured control of a quasi-military "flying school/club", it serves admirably. However, it fails pretty dismally in actually teaching people to exercise PPL privileges across the broader range of GA activities they might want to be involved in.

At the same time, people regularly crash light aircraft in the UK using methods and equipment which are dismally obsolete by the standards of modern aviation - see the Blackpool PA28 fatal ditching a few years ago, or the (thankfully non-fatal) training aircraft that crashed at night into the Yorkshire Dales last year on a navex whilst being true to the spirit of "not relying on modern technology". One presenter, in the context of infringements, reported that half the PPLs that came to him to rent an aircraft didn't know how to use a transponder. I am sure every one of these had their 1hr-with-an-instructor in the previous 2 years.

The problem in UK GA is an under-reliance on technology, especially in the training environment. It's one thing being 5-10 years behind modern aviation. I could just about see that in the early 2000s when glass cockpits, BRS and GPS were new. But, now in 2012, to be droning on about over-reliance whilst teaching PPLs nothing except a course that could have been written in the 1930s is a disgrace.

Sorry for the rant, had to get it off my chest, it's just the mindless way that phrase "over reliance on technology" keep popping up in the UK.

ps. PeterH - I owe you an apology. I did my PPL in the 1980s in the UK and I thought it was a pretty good course. Therefore I have disagreed with you over many years about UK PPL training and its "fitness-for-purpose". Some recent experience makes me realise you are right....

englishal

25th Jul 2012, 09:17

ie would a pilot choose an option which carried higher risk because the chute was there as backup.
Of course it does. I'd fly a Cirrus over the mountains and desert of California at night, but I would not take a 30 year old Tomahawk on the same flight. The Cirrus is a step down from a twin, in that you have a backup if an engine fails over hostile terrain or at night and so therefore can be used as a real go places plane by the family.

I have done some flights in the past, i.e. Phoenix to LA at 2am in a clapped out Archer which I'd think twice about now I have much more experience, but would do in a Twin or something with a BRS.

Regarding "piloting skills"...I recall many VMC into IMC accidents in non cirrus types...

mad_jock

25th Jul 2012, 12:07

421C there are bigger things to sort out in the UK in flight instruction apart from technology.

They can't get ex 1-13 and stalling taught properly.

Your job for PPL is to teach basic flying skills. Anything above the basics is for post qualification.

Alot of PPL have learned to just play dumb with instructors just to get through check rides. Claim they don't know how to do the subjects which have the most variation between instructors and see how this one likes to do it.

To be able to progress onto technology you have to have a foundation in the basics. Currently there are folk out there that can't fly straight and level in trim.

Currently there is no room in the PPL to do any extra without missing the basics out.

An 8th subject in the theory I wouldn't object to. But know there would be much nashing of teeth and complaints if they tried to bring it in.

A and C

25th Jul 2012, 16:13

Having looked at the photos avalable of the area were this inccident happend it is clear that the options for a forced landing were to say the least limited.

The chute gave the pilot another option and (in my opinon) he was wise to use the chute option, this resulting in the perfect outcome.

What I think it illistrates well is that as soon as the red handle is pulled you are a passenger who's landing place is now down to chance. I think as long as the chute is used as a last option it is a good thing to have, used as a get out of jail free card to get the unskilled out of trouble it is likely to kill more people tan it saves.

peterh337

25th Jul 2012, 16:52

Having looked at the photos avalable of the area were this inccident happend it is clear that the options for a forced landing were to say the least limited.

You may very well be right but all that those pictures actually prove is that there was a forest directly below :)

My GF has a PhD in philosophy and unfortunately some of it has rubbed off :)

On the wider issue of Cirrus chute pulls, yes the chute saves lives but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning, poor in-flight judgement, etc, will merely lead to rising insurance premiums for those who want to buy a nice shiny new piston plane, for which the choice is, currently, ahem, Cirrus or Cirrus and very little else.

If we all spent our lives crossing the Pyrenees (as I have done today) and little else then I am sure our attitudes to the chute would be different, but on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middle.

For that kind of flying, or something more bening (and I reckon 99% of UK GA flying is more benign) I would not attach much value to a chute.

Fuji Abound

25th Jul 2012, 18:41

Peterh while i know you have often spoken about having good landing sites with respect i would once again caution such an assumtion. I hope you never put it to the test but as i have also said many times a good landing site at 2,000 feet can look less good at 1,000 feet and a whole lot less good at 500 feet. I use to land on a strip on the side of a hill on the up slope of a small valley. The strip was actually in pretty good nick but i would tell anyone the first few times were interesting. All you need is a few lumps and bumps and it adds to the interest. In fact there are some really good strips in france that will test your pfls.

In short perhaps i am wrong but i just worry a little that many assume a FL is a sinch. Plenty go wrong, and often its just bad luck, the field that looked so good at 2000 feet looked less good at 500 but by then the pilot was committed.

Are ppl trainees till taught what to look out for in field selection?

peterh337

25th Jul 2012, 18:58

I wasn't thinking of fields where one could land and then take off from.

That is a very tall order and the vast majority of the countryside is not good for that - unless the plane is a STOL type (a Maule ;) ).

Most "horizontal" cultivated fields can be landed in, if a subsequent takeoff is not required, with minimal skill.

007helicopter

25th Jul 2012, 19:05

On the wider issue of Cirrus chute pulls, yes the chute saves lives but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning

Peter, sorry you are completely wrong here.

Sure a few chute pulls the Pilot should never have set off on the journey and made a gross error of judgement, possibly like the only one in the UK, ie the oxford one, either inadeverdent VFR into IMC or intentional, either way Pilot error. He made a bad judgement but fortunately the chute saved his bacon unlike the hundreds that do the same thing in other types and die. I think this type of pull is in fact rare, most just carry on and kill themselves and forget they have even got a chute as an option.

The vast majority of Cirrus pulls are appropriate and are genuine life saving scenarios. I could bore you to death with the details of everyone but will refrain.

I would put 100% of the Cirrus Chute Pulls in the last appx 2 years in that category, that is a grand total of 2, this one and the Bahamas as far as I recall.

The problem with the Cirrus and the Chute is to many Cirrus Pilots die with a perfectly good chute intact in the plane.

In roughly the same time period at least 10+ other fatalaties where you just think why on earth did they not use the damn thing.

007helicopter

25th Jul 2012, 19:22

If we all spent our lives crossing the Pyrenees (as I have done today) and little else then I am sure our attitudes to the chute would be different, but on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middle.

I do not know the landing ability of a TB20 in fields, I assume it has happened a reasonable amount of times with good and bad outcomes.

A Cirrus is probably worse than most GA aircraft due to the small wheels and higher than average landing speed.

In terms of when I am flying a Cirrus I have a pre determined decision already made that it is not an option I will take however good the field looks. Whatever happens in the event of an off airport landing required it will be at 17 knots vertically for better or worse.

I believe the risk of cart wheeling in rough fields, hitting rocks, ditches, crops, wires, animals, pot holes, ploughed fields, coming up short etc etc is to high a risk for me and passengers when a better option exists. A lot of these are not obvious at 1000ft plus.

peterh337

25th Jul 2012, 19:55

All high perf singles will have Vs=59kt, because anything lower cripples performance and anything higher is not allowed on Part 23 SE (some exceptions e.g. TBM700 C2 etc which are ~65kt).

I guess the SR20/22 is disadvantaged for forced landings because the gear cannot be retracted.

The vast majority of Cirrus pulls are appropriate and are genuine life saving scenarios

We will have to disagree there.

But maybe not if one takes it in the proper context which is limited quality (for the aircraft type) PPL training, coupled with the "airliner" advertising methods.

mad_jock

25th Jul 2012, 20:04

But apparently Peter it is unreasonable to expect pilots to fly at the correct speeds.

007helicopter

25th Jul 2012, 20:08

We will have to disagree there.

But maybe not if one takes it in the proper context which is limited quality (for the aircraft type) PPL training, coupled with the "airliner" advertising methods.

Happy to disagree but I just wonder what you base this opinion on?

This one for example was a very experienced instructor, and the previous Bahamas one an extremely seasoned Pilot.

007helicopter

25th Jul 2012, 20:26

I guess the SR20/22 is disadvantaged for forced landings because the gear cannot be retracted.

I am actually quite happy and now prefer fixed gear, I must admit I was quite paranoid in the 100 or so hours I did in a PA28RT that some sort of distraction would happen and I would forget to put it down, and it seems from evidence that plenty of others have done gear up unintentional landings.

The only emergency landing I have made with all fire engines out etc was when the front nose gear hydraulic ram sheared and the front nose wheel would not lock in and was just hanging down limply, fortunately before landing when we slowed right down gravity allowed it to lock in.

421C

25th Jul 2012, 20:42

on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middlewhat about at night or with low overcast?

VMC-on-top

25th Jul 2012, 20:52

It simply bemuses me why there is an anti-cirrus sector on pprune and within GA generally. Perhaps it is simply down to envy? i have no idea but I cannot see, having followed numerous "anti-cirrus" threads, why there should be any other reason other than that stated. For instance, it is difficult to imagine that all cirrus pilots are trained poorly (as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots) ; all Cirrus pilots are under qualified, blinkered and dumb, as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots? there's a bit of theme running here isn't there?

I have no data to hand but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can provide such stats which directly compares the number of pro-rata (by type) non-Cirrus SEP fatalities over say, the last 10 years with Cirrus chute pulls? Is there such data available? Surely, the stats for living / deceased, should speak for themselves and keep the cynics quiet once and for all?

Fuji Abound

25th Jul 2012, 21:00

Peterh no i wasnt talking about landing and taking off. My example was only to illustrate a "good" strip can be more difficult than one might think when it comes to the crunch.

All this talk of FL creates the impression they are easy; the evidence is plenty go wrong even into good looking fields.

A good friend of mine killed himself and his partner. He had 4,000 hours all in light aircraft, i flew with him a bit he was a good pilot, the field was pretty good too but it all went horribly wrong - it happens to the best, and i think any FL should be taken very seriously.

Thats the point i wanted to make.

paulp

25th Jul 2012, 21:52

Mary
There was some debate that pulling the chute over water would increase the chance of injury as the undercarrige can not absorb some of the energy.

Real world data says there is no issue. The only injury was a cracked vertebrae and in that case the engine was being used in an attempt to steer the plane. BRS says that may have caused air to spill and the descent rate to increase.

paulp

25th Jul 2012, 21:55

peterh337 Have you looked through the list of chute pulls? I have. In some cases I think there was awful decision making that got the pilot into the situation but I can only think of two that I would seriously second guess.

421C

25th Jul 2012, 22:11

but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning, poor in-flight judgement really, go on and tell me that non-Cirrus accidents don't equally share those circumstances!

peterh337

25th Jul 2012, 22:15

what about at night or with low overcast?

Then you buy a 421C, or some other twin, if you want the extra capability and the extra peace of mind, and you pay the extra running cost.

Or something with a PT6 up front.

There is a continuous spectrum of mission capability and operating cost.

But there are - for most GA flyers - almost no airports that you can land at after flying in the dark.

The overcast issue one can address to a degree by running an appropriate type of topo GPS moving map, non-IFR.

Have you looked through the list of chute pulls? I have. In some cases I think there was awful decision making that got the pilot into the situation but I can only think of two that I would seriously second guess.

Thinking of the reports I have read, I think the "awful decision making" is what I had in mind, preflight perhaps.

OTOH I speak as a cautious IFR flyer, who is quite picky about icing conditions and crappy/convective weather generally. There are many IFR flyers who more or less always go and I am sure they would have a different view. My view is that a non-deiced non-radar-equipped plane needs to be used fairly cautiously, especially if it is "plastic" in which case you are relying totally on bonding.

For instance, it is difficult to imagine that all cirrus pilots are trained poorly (as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots)

I don't think that is the case; in fact Cirrus pilots should, by now, be trained better than average, due to insurance industry pressure (in the USA, at least).

But Cirrus have done two things which are fairly new in this very stale industry: (1) they have dug up a new stratum of flyers, often younger men (rather than the cantankerous old codgers who make up the bulk of the GA community :) which traditional GA products have been aimed at) and (2) they have advertised with ads which tended to emphasise the simplicity of flying their machines, and their use for casual personal and business travel.

(1) has been a great service to GA which has seen a continuous decline since the 1960s. It may draw out some new truly daft pilots but I am not sure that's the case because so many "old" pilots have got away with bad habits for years, by luck.

(2) I do have an issue with; I think it is misleading. Cirrus are not the only one; look at the recent Cessna 400 ads with that stupid businessman saying he can now do 3 meetings a day. Anybody who knows how aircraft performance and equipment maps onto weather capability, assuming a non-cowboy, will know it's a con.

paulp

25th Jul 2012, 23:52

especially if it is "plastic" in which case you are relying totally on bonding.

Huh??????????

The Cirrus airframe is extremely strong. On the Columbia they cut one of the two wing spars and still passed testing. Partly due to very conservative certification requirement, composite planes are very strong. The only inflight breakup of a Cirrus was in a dive at close to 300 knots when the chute was deployed.

The Cirrus wing is sensitive to ice and I find that the Cirrus will often have frost on it when metal planes won't. I admit that I fear ice more than thunderstorms. I can see and avoid thunderstorms.

Then you buy a 421C, or some other twin, if you want the extra capability and the extra peace of mind, and you pay the extra running cost.

Gee I guess you have so much money that operating cost isn't an issue. In that case just buy a Gulfstream. I can't afford the operating cost of a 421.

FYI, Cirrus offers a FIKI certified plane. Most Cirrus aircraft have the less capable inadvertent ice system. In the US there is XM and Sirius weather to choose from. As long as you understand that the image may be 8 minutes delayed it is good from non-tactical weather decision making.

A and C

26th Jul 2012, 06:13

Quote;-The only emergency landing I have made with all fire engines out etc was when the front nose gear hydraulic ram sheared and the front nose wheel would not lock in and was just hanging down limply, fortunately before landing when we slowed right down gravity allowed it to lock in.

Most light aircraft have a max speed to freefall the gear, I am interested to know if a speed is quoted in the Piper PoH ?

007helicopter

26th Jul 2012, 10:54

Most light aircraft have a max speed to freefall the gear, I am interested to know if a speed is quoted in the Piper PoH ?

have not flown one for years so I am personally not aware.

At the time I was unaware of actually what the problem was, we heard a very loud bang when raising the under carriage which was the ram shearing, I did not know what the problem was at the time other than only 2 greens and the tower saying the nose wheel was hanging down when we did a low pass, now I know it falls with gravity at slower speeds I would be better equipped to deal with.

Back to this thread I personally feel the chute although 10 year + technology now is still not understood or accepted as a viable and very worthwhile bit of kit on a GA aircraft and tars the pilots who are positive about it as in some incompetent or lacking training etc.

With the massive success of Cirrus compared to any other make on the planet
you would assume other manufacturers would wish to take this existing & proven technology on board to compete by making it a standard?

mad_jock

26th Jul 2012, 11:10

It would make most aircraft designs impossible due to weight constraints.

And you are right there is a general attitude that cirrus pilots are talent limited. And flying for 10mins and 10 plus miles from 9k to try and reach some tarmac doesn't help matters.

Plus most of us can't and wouldn't pay for a chute.

421C

27th Jul 2012, 13:39

And you are right there is a general attitude that cirrus pilots are talent limited

Hardly a general attitude. I would put it more as an attitude amongst some of the oddball losers that haunt pilot forums.

And flying for 10mins and 10 plus miles from 9k to try and reach some tarmac doesn't help matters What is it about the Cirrus that means some people take it as a licence to drop all the normal courtesy and HF understanding in how pilots discuss accidents? Don't most accidents involve a significant degree of human error? Where does this self-perpetuating moronic forum prejudice come from? Luckily Cirrus pilots have an excellent forum and resource in COPA to understand safety issues such as the use of CAPS and can ignore PPRUNE drivel.

To be clear, I am not a Cirrus man, I only have a few hours on the airplane. It's not my personal favourite for a number of reasons. Also MJ don't take this as a personal dig at you, it's directed at the overall negative forum attitude to Cirrus.

007helicopter

27th Jul 2012, 17:32

Despite some of the drivel I think it is a worthwhile topic for discussion because there are plenty of Cirrus Drivers out there who could benefit from being a member of COPA and specific training on why and when to use the Chute, so if nothing else these threads may be thought provoking and lead some of them to seek out more information.

In very broad round numbers I believe around half of Cirrus owners belong to COPA yet 75% of fatal accidents in Cirrus are non COPA members. (It is something like this but I will update if to far out)

Maybe a COPA member who is prepared to spend the measly $75.00 is a more likely person to go on additional safety training, and maybe COPA members read all the accident reports and learn from them, I do not know the reason's but this is roughly as it is.

Also another point as this thread is likely coming to an end, There have been in Total 96 Fatal's and 36 CAPS pulls that saved lives, with more training and focus on when to use the Chute I wish those numbers were reversed....

The Chute so far has had 100% success when used within designed criteria.

Pace

27th Jul 2012, 20:14

007H

I wonder if half the reason for all the attention this aircraft gets is because it is the first to have a chute as standard.
having that chute brings in a different mentality to flying and different option potentials.
Even the fact that with conventional aircraft engine failure you are going down! Whether you are successful will depend on your skills and the landing sites open to you.
The Cirrus pilot can forget all that and just pull the chute.
I think if the chute was used as one strapped to your back ie bail out when the aircraft becomes critical then there might not be this level of discussion but fitted to the aircraft challenges conventional methods and teaching so it is bound to generate discussion?
Pilots are pilots and I do not believe that Cirrus pilots are substandard although I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft.
I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent.
I do think the chute is the way ahead and would love to see other manufacturers following suit and offering aircraft with built in and tested chute systems.
Cirrus gets attention because it is the first and there is still debate over when the chute should be used.
It is always a worry flying single pilot that should anything happen to that pilot or the aircraft that the precious cargo of a family on board stand no chance! But with the chute properly trained in its execution they do!
The 172 had the best safety record! I wonder what a chuted 172 would be like compared? Of course if one could be fitted as standard!

Pace

mad_jock

27th Jul 2012, 20:34

A very fair post pace which I agree with.

Its not just us knobs on BB's there is a fair amount of "talent limited" so need a chute to save there arses, outside forums.

I reallly would never put myself over a bit of woods if I could help it and noway would I be over them with 10 plus miles to play with and 10 mins. If they had pulled over a green bit after decideding at 1000 ft it was ****e I wouldn' t have an issue.

I think 007 though has although not meaning to has made a point about the mentality of some pilots.

There are some that treat the chute as a bonus and there are others that see it as a get out of jail free card that means the don't have to do normal "airmanship" The ones that see it as a bonus join the additional optional training/idea storming forums and then see to have a very healthy outlook and the others which are the ones that give the rest a bad name end up as a darwin satistic.

Genghis the Engineer

27th Jul 2012, 21:17

A note of personal history - the UK was the first country to have formal approval rules for installation of ballistic parachutes. I led drafting of them about 1997 and a very interesting task it was too.

I've since flown a number of BRS equipped aeroplanes, including using BRS as our primary "get out of gaol card" during the first spinning of two aeroplane types. (Although somehow I've so-far failed to ever get my backside in a Cirrus).

Cirrus is unique however, in that the philosophy that I/we envisaged was that

(a) the primary consideration of the parachute was that it was not to endanger the aeroplane
(b) the aeroplane still had to meet all of the safety requirements any other aeroplane would.

The Cirrus is so far as I know unique in that the parachute is actually certified to work (as opposed to not do any damage if you don't touch it), but also that the aeroplane was allowed during certification to be more relaxed in some ways than another aeroplane is.

So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.

And this has to change the mindset of a pilot flying a Cirrus, compared to one flying, say, a C172. You would not try and recover it from a spin, you'd pull the handle.

However, then we come to the difficult bit, there is so far as I know absolutely no difference between how a C172 should be able to handle an engine failure, and how a Cirrus should. Both should be fully controllable to land in a field.

However, taking a step sideways and backwrds - the first military aeroplanes were not equipped with parachutes. As compact parachutes were developed and made reliable, they became very controversial and through most of WW1 most military aeroplanes did not carry them as they were considered to encourage bad thinking.

I wasn't around, but I'll bet that there were similar controversies when the ejector seat came along.

And so we have it on the Cirrus for good reason. Some pilots (I'm sure not all) are taking the view that it gives them an alternative option and either permits them to avoid trying to fly a forced landing, or to take the aeroplane places where one just wouldn't be possible. It's a rational decision, albeit one that most of us older old and less bold pilots (even if we have got a reasonable amount of ejector seat time) tend to disagree with. Ultimately it is a legitimate point of view however, because the parachute system in the Cirrus does work, just as flying low level in a Jaguar was rational, for exactly the same reasons.

The first air accident investigation that I ever worked on was a Hawk, the aeroplane was written off, both pilots ejected and survived with only minor injuries (save possibly to their careers). I had the interesting pleasure of phoning BAe to tell them we'd written off one of their babies - the initial response from the man I spoke to remains with me to this day:-

"Kit is only kit, so long as nobody was killed, we can build another one".

G

421C

27th Jul 2012, 21:37

So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be. Why is this very critical? The Cirrus is a high performance airplane. Is a Mooney or Malibu or Bonanza certified for spin recovery? No light twin I've ever flown is certified as able to recover from a spin. So the Cirrus is no different from most high performance light aircraft, except it has the benefit of the CAPS as an additional option in the event of a spin.

Pace

27th Jul 2012, 21:50

G and the engineering types

No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?

421C you make a valid point re spin recovery yet that does not mean that those aircraft including twins will not recover from a spin!
The fact is that pilots are no longer trained for spin recovery or for other recovery situations so maybe we need more pilot assist methods to compensate for partially trained pilots ???

Pace

421C

27th Jul 2012, 21:56

I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft. Well, you may believe it but what evidence is there for it? The Cirrus has been the world's best selling light airplane for a decade. There are thousands out there. The stats quite clearly show the Cirrus is as safe or safer than comparable airplanes.

On the other hand, why shouldn't the CAPS be used to extend the range of conditions someone is comfortable flying in? You could make the same criticism of multi-engine airplanes. I fly a twin to be more comforable in conditions I'd be wary of in a single. To some extent, the CAPS offers a degree of comparable risk mitigation. I have an instrument rating so I can fly in conditions I'd be wary of if I didn't. So if I'd be wary, say, of flying over terrain at night in a single without CAPS, why shouldn't I fly a Cirrus in these conditions if I judge the extra risk mitigation sufficient?

I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent. Similarly, no evidence to support that is a systemtic issue for the Cirrus. Plenty of data on the accident rates of glass vs non glass versions of the same type, they're similar.

Pace

27th Jul 2012, 22:06

421C

You make very valid points but there is a slight area of concern.
As an IR pilot you are very good at what you do and well up to flying a twin in difficult weather/ circumstances ie you are not relying on the aircraft to compensate for a lack of experience or holes in your abilities.
We should all fly within our and the aircrafts limits! Caution dictates that in most circumstances we will!!
My judgment on the chute is purely based on how I personally would feel flying a Cirrus compared to say a 172.
I would undertake night flights in the Cirrus as a multi pilot I would be more cautious in the 172!
I would also probably push my luck in bad weather or fly over fog banks in the Cirrus hence while I may not fly out of my limits I would probably fly out of the aircraft limits more in a Cirrus than the 172.

It is just human nature! Feel safer and you will fly unsafer!!!

Pace

421C

27th Jul 2012, 22:07

The fact is that pilots are no longer trained for spin recovery or for other recovery situations so maybe we need more pilot assist methods to compensate for partially trained pilots ??? They are not partially trained pilots, they are properly trained pilots. Spin recovery is no longer in the PPL syllabus in the US or Europe because it's no longer the 1930s. When training causes more accidents than it prevents, as was the case with spin recovery training, then you rightly stop the training.

The logic is so obvious. Look at Gehghis comment on BRS. When an airplane is being flight tested, a BRS is fitted to assist recovery from difficult situations like spins. Does this mean test pilots are partially trainined? No. It means a pilot assist device is generally a good thing to mitigate risks.

Pace

27th Jul 2012, 22:16

On that point I disagree if pilots are not trained in spin recovery or out of the box aircraft handling they are partially trained!
Take the tragic PC12 crash???
As an ex racing driver I know only too well about driving a car out of the box.
Without that ability you could never drive fast.
Because the training caused more accidents is not an argument to stop pilots being fully trained but a fault in the aircraft used or the capabilities of the instructors.

IE A pilot who goes off and does 5 hrs aerobatic training in an aerobatic certificate aircraft with a properly rated instructor will be a more capable pilot than if he never did such training?
Or are you saying he will be just as capable without that out of the box training?

It is all very well training pilots to recovery to incipient this or incipient that until the day the aircraft goes beyond incipient and then where does that leave him? In uncharted territory and in the arms of the Gods?
Then sadly you get tragic accidents like the recent PC12 crash.

Pace

421C

27th Jul 2012, 22:37

As an IR pilot you are very good at what you do and well up to flying a twin in difficult weather/ circumstances ie you are not relying on the aircraft to compensate for a lack of experience or holes in your abilitiesIt's nice of you to say, but I think the truth that applies to just about all of us is that our risk of a fatal accident in a light airplane changes very little as we get more experienced/qualified and fly more capable airplanes (at least with piston aircraft). The accident stats are very similar across aircraft types and pilot qualifications/hours. There's no evidence that any particular category of pilot uses aircraft capabilities to compensate for lack of ability/experience. The evidence suggests that pilots do a remarkably "good" job of compensating for more ability/experience and more capable airplanes by undertaking greater risk exposure. It might apply to the novice in a Cirrus, but it applies equally to the experienced guy in a traditional aircraft.

Genghis the Engineer

27th Jul 2012, 22:39

Why is this very critical? The Cirrus is a high performance airplane. Is a Mooney or Malibu or Bonanza certified for spin recovery? No light twin I've ever flown is certified as able to recover from a spin. So the Cirrus is no different from most high performance light aircraft, except it has the benefit of the CAPS as an additional option in the event of a spin.

It's critical because it forces a change in how you think about the operation of the aeroplane.

And yes, the Mooney, Malibu and Bonanza are certified for spin recovery - they just aren't certified for deliberate spinning. They still have to be able to recover should you get into one.

It's true that most twins are not certified for spin recovery, but there are a raft of other extra safety requirements that they have to meet. Standard have to be appropriate to the design at the end of the day.

G

Genghis the Engineer

27th Jul 2012, 22:42

G and the engineering types

No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?

Pace

I was flying a Flightdesign CT the other day, which has the BRS as an option, and it was fitted. (It's also high wing - the chute fires sideways out of the rear fuselage just behind the wing trailing edge).

Cirrus have made it mandatory on their aeroplane, but actually quite a lot of smaller manufacturers have had it as an optional mod for quite a few years.

Of course, if the CAPS/BRS is optional, it doesn't give any alleviation from any other airworthiness requirements.

G

Pace

27th Jul 2012, 22:58

Cirrus have made it mandatory on their aeroplane, but actually quite a lot of smaller manufacturers have had it as an optional mod for quite a few years.

Mandatory, fitted as standard, fully tried and tested to the reliability levels of cirrus sounds better than an optional mod!
With the amount of deployments in testing and in real world situations the manufacturers must be getting more and more reassured that their system works time and time again with regular reliability.
So much so that many (not the manufacturer) are recommending the chute as a standard procedure for engine failure or in fact any situation where the pilot feels unable to cope?
That is a bit different to some microlight manufacturer offering a strap on ballistic chute which may not be quite as reliable.
My question is why Cessna do not build this into the Columbia which would increase their sales or even into the 172 which has the best safety record chute or no chute??
Do they have plans to do so as purely from a marketing public perception angle the chute must be a big sales motivator!

Pace

421C

27th Jul 2012, 23:02

IE A pilot who goes off and does 5 hrs aerobatic training in an aerobatic certificate aircraft with a properly rated instructor will be a more capable pilot than if he never did such training?

Of course, everything else being equal, 5hrs instruction makes us all better pilots. But everything else isn't equal. For most people 5hrs aeros instruction would be a trade-off against 5hrs of other instruction. On the whole, I think aeros instruction is not terribly relevant to most GA pilots, especially those whose flying is more A-B transport in higher performance aircraft. I am more a nerdy/technical pilot than a stick-n-rudder man, I will admit. I know nothing about aeros. But, if I am going to get into trouble, it's going to be mishandling an engine failure or messing up in IMC, so I'd rather keep doing 5hrs of sim training on asymmetric and instrument work than bother with aeros. Similarly, I don't read many Cirrus accident reports where aeros training would have had any relevance.

On the PC12 tragedy, we haven't seen a report yet, but I doubt 5hrs in a Bulldog or some light aerobatic single would have made the slightest difference. Scott Crossfield was tragically killed in his light single in a thunderstorm, and I imagine he had more extreme aeros and performance experience in a lifetime of flight testing and flying rocket ships than most pilots out there....

Genghis the Engineer

27th Jul 2012, 23:30

I absolutely agree Pace that a certified BRS system changes the picture.

But, having had significant sight of the installation of those systems, I'd say that the microlight manufacturers have also been very rigorous in those installations, albeit not quite to the level of the certified system on the Cirrus.

It's entirely reasonable that we see more of these, and that they change the way we see some flight safety and operational issues. But, you shouldn't underestimate the huge cost of reaching the level of certification that Cirrus have. They may not have had the cost of spin testing, but they hardly got off cost free.

G

Fuji Abound

28th Jul 2012, 00:13

I reallly would never put myself over a bit of woods if I could help it and noway would I be over them with 10 plus miles to play with and 10 mins

You would in a twin. Why, because if an engine fails you have a get out of jail free card.

You wouldnt in a single, because you dont.

But actually the chances of an engine failure are miniscule. They are even more miniscule over that particular wood. Sure you still might not like those stats but with a chute, you might. The risk is already tiny, and the chute gives a better than 90% chance of a successful outcome should the worst happen, so whats so wrong using the chute to enlarge your envelope of what you would do in a sep?

I am really not all all keen flying a sep at night or over a rough sea these days. Id fly a cirrus, and if the engine quit, id use the chute. That level of risk sits comfortably for me and i dont think id feel any more comfortable in a twin.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 05:00

007H

I wonder if half the reason for all the attention this aircraft gets is because it is the first to have a chute as standard.
having that chute brings in a different mentality to flying and different option potentials.

I think it gets a lot of attention because it was the first and I assume still only with the chute as a standard option, plus was different in so many ways with all the other features of glass etc, I suppose also because it is also considered an expensive aircraft by spam can standards it is natural to assume a fair percentage of owners have more money than hours (read sense) although I can honestly say this is not my experience with the vast majority of owners I have personally met (which is 100's)

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 05:11

So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.

And this has to change the mindset of a pilot flying a Cirrus, compared to one flying, say, a C172. You would not try and recover it from a spin, you'd pull the handle.

Genghis my understanding is that the Cirrus recovers from a spin pretty much like any other aircraft. It was not certified for this because there was no need to pay for this during development due to the chute.

I personally would not try and recover from a spin, I admit I have never trained for this and probably never will.

If I or any other Pilot find ourselves in an unintentional spin then I believe we have already failed to maintain proper control of the aircraft and made a gross error, in that case safest option in a Cirrus when control is lost is pull the chute.

In another aircraft if a pilot is fully competent to recover from a spin then I would bet they would probably never find themselves in an unintentional spin in the first place.

The guys that find themselves in an unintentional spin are as I understand it past the point of recovery and will likely die along with their pax as a result.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 05:27

I think 007 though has although not meaning to has made a point about the mentality of some pilots.

There are some that treat the chute as a bonus and there are others that see it as a get out of jail free card that means the don't have to do normal "airmanship" The ones that see it as a bonus join the additional optional training/idea storming forums and then see to have a very healthy outlook and the others which are the ones that give the rest a bad name end up as a darwin satistic.

Jock not sure where you think I fit in this category but the point about pilots with a healthy outlook to training and safety and those who give us a bad name I think are pretty evenly spread across the whole spectrum of types flown.

In my personal experience I have generally observed some pretty shocking, shoddy and terrible decision making in other types than I have in fact in my experience of Cirrus Pilots that are known to me.

I just do not see evidence of the chute in the Cirrus making pilots make more reckless stupid decisions because "no problem, if it all goes t1ts up i will just pull"

If anything in the Cirrus community I see more on going voluntary training than any other type I have personally been involved with, ie Piper, Cessna, Robin, Beech.

Have you actually met any Cirrus Pilot that does have the attitude and characteristics you are talking about?

peterh337

28th Jul 2012, 06:18

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 06:40

007H

I do not think the word reckless is correct "enhanced confidence"?? If you walked out onto a Hotel balcony 20 stories up and there was a safety barrier/rail around the Balcony you would feel secure even looking down over the edge.
Take away that safety barrier/rail so the concrete balcony finished with a straight drop to the streets below and how far towards the edge would you go?
Would you stand on the edge with a 20 story drop below and look down?
Those who say the chute would not lure you into a false sense of security are not being realistic.
Say Jack was a pilot who had medical issues but was passed as fit to fly on drugs which controlled his condition. Would the fact that he had a chute instill more confidence in him to solo fly than if the aircraft had no chute?
The pilot who flies at night would he have more confidence doing so in a cirrus or a 172.
Flying in an area of cloud which could or could not hold icing would the pilot feel more confident in the Cirrus or 172? if neither had anti/deice fitted?
So it goes on!!!

The chute MUST encourage pilots to fly in conditions where the use of the chute is more likely to occur.
More disciplined pilots will stick to the limits they would impose on themselves minus a chute but many would not.
One Cirrus crashed under the chute when he incurred icing in IMC. How do you statistically prove that he would not be there in a 172?
You cannot but it does not take rocket science to work out that the pilot of a Cirrus will be lured into flying in conditions he would be wary of in a chuteless aircraft.
If I gave you two similar cars and told you to drive them through the center of London but one had explosives fitted to each corner of the car? which would you be more cautious driving? The one with explosives where you know a collision even slight would cause your death or the one without explosives?
You would give a wider berth to other cars and obstructions in the one with explosives and would be far more cautious driving that car.

Pace

Fuji Abound

28th Jul 2012, 06:54

Pace as i said earlier i would certainly feel more comfortable and more willing to fly in certain circumstances with, than without a chute. Night is the best example. I see nothing wrong in that any more than bolting on another engine.

Would i fly at night in a sep - very very reluctantly these days, there would need to be a pressing reason, in a cirrus - yes, but i admit not with total comfort, in a twin, yes and with complete comfort.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:14

A couple of interesting questions might be:

1) Why haven't Cirrus done some informal spin testing and put the recovery video on Youtube? It would stop these never ending debates about whether it actually recovers, or whether there is something dodgy about its behaviour in unbalanced flight around Vs.

2) Why haven't other big-name manufacturers copied Cirrus and fitted the chute?

Peter I do not have a clue to either of those questions but I do not really think Cirrus give a monkeys if people do debate about the Cirrus spinning.

Interesting video here of a Cirrus test using CAPS to recover from a spin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAwET3Q9Og4&search=airplanes

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 07:19

Fuji

Do not worry you have convinced me to the merits of the chute ;) The only question is still over when it should or should not be used?
I would be concerned if any technology was used to plug gaps in basic flying skills and like the second engine in a twin that is not the answer to all evils but another option to add to the armory.
The Chute like the second engine gives you more options, with more options come more choices! with more choices come more options to make the wrong choice.

Pace

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:22

I do not think the word reckless is correct "enhanced confidence"??

Pace I pretty much agree with you.

I would also say and agree I have "enhanced confidence" with the Cirrus and have done very long flights over very inhospitable terrain, flying with cloud base down to the ground , night, over Mountains etc etc so yes it does make some of those risks now acceptable to me that I personally would not do in 172 or similar.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:28

You cannot but it does not take rocket science to work out that the pilot of a Cirrus will be lured into flying in conditions he would be wary of in a chuteless aircraft.

Yes I guess so, but hopefully for most in a planned and calculated way.

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 07:34

007H

That clip had some worrying implications? One the aircraft under the chute had quite a forward speed. If those winds held to the ground on top of the vertical impact would be quite a horizontal impact.
At certain angles in slow flight I was also concerned with tangling of cables and lines especially in a spin recovery??

Sadly looking at the spin I feel the aircraft would have easily recovered with a competant and well trained in spinning pilot?

The spin was nose down and conventional.

The very case for spin training and proper pilot training where there was no need for the use of the chute other than to plug gaps in pilot ability.

Always sad to see an aircraft which will be destroyed when there was no need! Must also be a worry to the insurance companies seeing an aircraft destroyed because of lack of proper pilot training.

For me that was an example of when NOT to use the chute

Pace

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:40

Sadly looking at the spin I feel the aircraft would have easily recovered with a competant and well trained in spinning pilot?

Pace, yes it would, this was a test to specifically test the chute in a spin, it was not an accident.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:43

Always sad to see an aircraft which will be destroyed when there was no need! Must also be a worry to the insurance companies seeing an aircraft destroyed because of lack of proper pilot training.

I think after a decade, 5000 air frames, millions of hours in the fleet insurers have got an angle on the Cirrus risk and are quite happy to insure it for a reasonable price.

Again regarding training I believe any well trained Pilot should not get into a spin in the first place. If they do it is probably over in terms of having the skill and presence of mind to get out of it.

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 07:48

007H

You stated in an earlier post that you had never been trained in spin recovery and would not know what to do?
I would recommend you take yourself off to an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine and run through a number of out of the box manouvers ???
Apart from being a lot of fun you would gain a lot;)

Training to avoid is obviously very important but sadly crashes occur when avoid does not work and a full stall, spiral dive, spin is entered inadvertently. PC 12 crash at altitude?

Pace

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:49

1) Why haven't Cirrus done some informal spin testing and put the recovery video on Youtube? It would stop these never ending debates about whether it actually recovers, or whether there is something dodgy about its behaviour in unbalanced flight around Vs.

There has been a Cirrus formal spin recovery testing, here is a short extract from the report. If any one wants it PM me your email as it is a 21 page PDF

1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against
the spin direction.

ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls
were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply
immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to
recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above
referenced reports.

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 07:55

007H

You stated in an earlier post that you had never been trained in spin recovery and would not know what to do?
I would recommend you take yourself off to an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine and run through a number of out of the box manouvers ???
Apart from being a lot of fun you would gain a lot

Pace, correct, I have never trained for this and as stated earlier probably never will.

Did they not cut it from the syllabus because it killed more as a training exercise than it saved as a recovery technique?

Aero's really do not appeal to me in anyway, just not my thing I guess, I would rather invest in a different 5 hours of training

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 08:14

It was removed from the syllabus for good reason that firstly the incorrect aircraft were being used for spin training and secondly often the instructors were not competent at teaching spin training or any other "out of the box manouvers"

That does not stop the PPL taking himself off for some proper training and investing in a few hours in an aerobatic aircraft with an aerobatic instructor.
You never know those few hours may just save your life, will make a pilot more confident in handling an aircraft and will be a lot of fun.
It really worries me when the chute is portrayed as an answer to every evil.
Like MJ maybe I was brought up in the old school of flying but forget basic handling skills at your peril!!

Pace

englishal

28th Jul 2012, 09:06

The spin thing is a red herring and irrelevant. Absolutely no twin that I know of is approved for spins, for example. Nor are B747s, A300's or any other airline, turboprop or whatever.

Many SEPs in the normal catagory are not certified for spins, and some not at all. As pointed out, if someone gets into an unintentional spin, then they have already gone beyond the bounds of normal flight. This has happened hundreds of times in non cirrus aeroplanes and people have been killed as a result.

I am sure it is partly the "Green Eyed Monster" that causes so much arguing about the Cirrus BRS, they are attractive, fast, capable aeroplanes. I expect some have been bought by rich, well to do, inexperienced pilots, who have killed themselves, but equally many are flown by very experienced pilots. Didn't the Bonanza have the nick name the "Forked tail doctor killer"? The Cirrus is no different, just a modern version and I don't think the Bonanza is any more dangerous than any other high performance SEP.

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 09:36

Englishal

Just because an aircraft is not approved for spinning does not mean that they cannot be recovered from a spin! The same goes for twins. It's the altitude you have to recover which is relevant and as such the chute is a good addition for fairly low spins but even the chute maybe too low !
I do not think airlines are a good example as some are fly by wire and fitted with all manner of things like stick shakers/ pushers etc.
Oh well maybe that will be the next Cirrus addition ?maybe we won't even be required to hold a PPL and a basic car driving licence will be all that is required to motor around the skies ?

Pace

007helicopter

28th Jul 2012, 09:40

That does not stop the PPL taking himself off for some proper training and investing in a few hours in an aerobatic aircraft with an aerobatic instructor.
You never know those few hours may just save your life, will make a pilot more confident in handling an aircraft and will be a lot of fun.
It really worries me when the chute is portrayed as an answer to every evil.
Like MJ maybe I was brought up in the old school of flying but forget basic handling skills at your peril!!

Pace I am not being awkward but I personally do not agree spin recovery is basic handling, for you it is, when you were taught it may well have been basic handling and that is ingrained in your thinking and fair enough.

If the FAA deem it ok to remove from the PPL sylabus, and certify a Cirrus as not requiring spin recovery testing because a BRS is a viable option, then frankly that is good enough for me.

I think the most likely and frequent time for a spin in a Cirrus is base to final turn at incorrect speed resulting in a spin that is not recoverable by chute or traditional methods as to low and is usually lethal.

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 10:12

007H

Apologies for being a stubborn bugger:E There was a tragic PC12 crash at altitude which APPEARS to be Stall, spin, spiral dive, overstress!
With aircraft handling you cannot look at one area in isolation anymore than when I used to race cars I had to know about oversteer, understeer, slides, throttle control, Spins etc etc etc. They all added up to handling a car and being comfortable at speed out of shape.

The same goes with flying IMO. While we all hope to never get into an inadvertent situation its when we least expect, when we miss the recovery at incipient that those basic skills can save you.

If you never experience a spin are you going to sit there wondering if your in a spin or spiral dive? Easy to confuse if you have never experienced a spin yet both requiring very different recovery techniques and both requiring prompt identification and rectification!
So in that respect spinning in itself is irrelevant but handling is not.
I have had some old school instructors/examiners in the past who would put you and the aircraft twins included through your paces (twins up at 10=12K)

I would like to see more towards handling pilots rather than plane drivers.
If for no more than all these technological advancements become a real safety addition rather than a cover up for inadequate training.

Looking at the Cirrus recovery it worried me whether at different CoG the chute wires cables could not entangle themselves around the aircraft.
At that Altitude in that aircraft there was NO excuse not to recover other than a lack of training IMO.

Pace

paulp

28th Jul 2012, 13:02

Looking at the Cirrus recovery it worried me whether at different CoG the chute wires cables could not entangle themselves around the aircraft.
At that Altitude in that aircraft there was NO excuse not to recover other than a lack of training IMO.

First the chute system is designed to recover from any attitude including a spin. With over 30 activations in Cirrus and many more in other aircraft, your entanglement concern is not an issue. There was one issue very early on (see Australian accident) which resulted in an SB. As far as the accident that started this thread, it appears to be a cross country that wasn't quite half way when there was engine trouble at altitude. The pilot talked to ATC (I've listened to the recording) and diverted to Pickens County. When he saw he wouldn't make it he pulled. As for what was reported as a dive, I suspect that was really after the initial chute pull. It is a staged sequence. First the rocket fires which makes a loud sound. People on the ground have reported that this catches your attention. In this accident the guy on the ground heard a loud bang. As the rocket pulls the chute out, the plane points nose down with an unfurled chute behind it. The reefing cutters then fire and release the straps to the nose and the plane becomes horizontal as those rip out from the sides. All this happens quickly.

421C

28th Jul 2012, 15:54

I would like to see more towards handling pilots rather than plane
drivers. If for no more than all these technological advancements become a
real safety addition rather than a cover up for inadequate training.
Well, you are 30 years out of date in your thinking. Flight training used to emphasise maneouvers and handling exercises and resulted in pilots who crashed planes because they were inadequately trained in decision-making, SRM, integrating modern systems into their flying and real-world scenarios that present threats. The emphasis in Cirrus training is very much the modern approach. A Cirrus pilot needs the skills to autonomously captain an aircraft on long trips across a variety of environments, making the right decisions and using the right resources. A traditional "handling" focused course, like the UK PPL, teaches people "captaincy" only to the extent of operating an obsolete aircraft in ideal conditions under the close supervision of a school in the local area of that school.

Of course any pilot needs basic handling skills. But I think you are wrong that there is a systematic problem with handling skills or technology substituting for handling skills in GA. Most studies identify decision-making and SRM as the key problems. Let's face it, handling skills and methods haven't changed much since the 1930s. All the vast improvements in commercial aviation safety since then are the result of technology and CRM/SOP methods. Handling has nothing to do with it. So ironically, my view would use your own words but reversed, I think that training should focus more on producing all-round "plane drivers" and not just "handling pilots".

I can't say I am an expert on any of this, so please take it as a friendly exchange of different views and no more!

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 15:56

Paul

Firstly I am not knocking the Cirrus or chute system as I think it is an amazing development in light single GA aircraft.
I hope others follow suit and also build in such a system to their aircraft as I feel it does and can save lives in what can be a very cruel passion if things go wrong.
I have just two concerns one that pilots maybe lulled into situations above their or the aircraft limits.
Two that priority should still be piloting skills and abilities with this system complimenting those skills and abilities not covering the lack of skills and abilities.
Apart from that I am convinced of the chutes reliability and potential to save lives.

Pace

Pace

28th Jul 2012, 18:18

421C

I have the greatest respect for your knowledge and considered opinion.
I cannot agree with you on this subject and do not agree that handling is 30 years out of date. Maybe more handling would have helped the outcome of the very very sad and tragic PC12 crash ?
Regardless yes we have much higher technology and more complicated airspace but little changes in aviation.
Anyway best to agree to disagree on this one : )
Looking forward to flying the Cirrus on a regular basis

Pace

421C

28th Jul 2012, 19:16

Pace

To be clear, I am not saying handling is out of date! I am saying that a view of pilot training that focuses on handling and maneuvers and does not integrate technology, SRM, decision-making, scenario/LOFT training etc is out of date.

To some extent I am not really arguing with you, but against a certain kind of traditional view of training that emphasises the minutae of handling exercises and ignores the rest, particularly in having a suspcion of "over reliance on technology" whilst teaching zilch about any GA technology developed since the 1960s. I'd characterise much UK training this way.

On the PC12 tragedy, it is hard to say. Certainly, on the margin, in some thunderstorm encounters, I guess real skill in handling might just save the day. There's always a story out there where amazing "right stuff" averted disaster, my favourite is the IAF pilot who landed an F15 with one wing. But the banal point remains that I don't think deficiencies in handling skills are a major issue for GA safety. Perhaps the odd damage to landing gear etc. The PC12 descended >10000' in ~30s. That ain't a spin. Practical training on weather planning, storm detection and avoidance, threat and error management etc I think is going to help more than aeros training in the event you encounter a storm.

brgds
421C

Gertrude the Wombat

28th Jul 2012, 21:10

IAF pilot who landed an F15 with one wing

This one?

1983 Negev mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision)

He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened." However, he also (incorrectly) stated that above a certain speed, the F-15 acted "like a rocket" and didn't need wings.

When to pull the handle, when not to?

paulp

29th Jul 2012, 01:41

Pace: My comment was regarding your fear about entanglement.

Be careful with general statements including being able to recover at altitude. One chute pull involved a CFI and aerobatic pilot who was at something like 16,000'. He was in clear air but over an undercast. The next thing he knew he was upside down in the clouds. The speculation involves rapidly building clouds which can rise at 5000'/minute. I back his decision to pull rather than try to recover in the clouds and over mountains. An interesting side note was that the Christmas ornaments in the luggage compartment survived intact.

Pace

29th Jul 2012, 07:41

Paul

I think we can get lost in the technology facts are that airframes other than being built out of composites have changed little in layout in 60 years!
Technology yes and the ability to reliably lower an aircraft and it's occupants to the ground safely had to be one of the most exciting developments!
When everything is running right flying is pretty easy it's when the technology breaks down or things go wrong that we are left with basic flying and handling skills.
IR flying is actually a handling flying skill hence why in a test we are expected to hand fly in the raw! No autopilot and minimal nav!
The same goes with pure handling.
421 C highlighted the high descent rate with the PC12! As not being a spin ! How many spins end up in a spiral dive and without knowing and being familiar with both confusion could easily cause the incorrect recovery methods and hence a breakup of the airframe!
Technology and terminology is all fantastic but most important of all is still handling piloting skills which in themselves lead to correct descision making !

Pace

englishal

29th Jul 2012, 09:02

Maybe more handling would have helped the outcome of the very very sad and tragic PC12 crash ?
We don't know anything about what the pilot in the PC12 was or was not trying to do. Maybe the aeroplane had entered a spin previously and he'd already recovered that using exceptional skills before something else happened. Maybe the aeroplane wouldn't allow him to recover...Who knows, but I do know the PC12 is not authorised for intentional spins making it no different to a Cirrus in that respect. So why don't we forget about that accident in relation to this discussion as it is not relevant.

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 09:31

When to pull the handle, when not to?

This really is the big question point for me.

I have blatantly planned and made my mid up when I will use the chute:

1) that in the event of virtually all off airport landings for what ever reason (unless I can guarantee the quality of the surface which is unlikely)

2) In the event I lose control of the aircraft through pilot error, disorientation, mechanical failure.

3) Over Sea requiring a ditching.

4) Find myself out of my depth in conditions I can not assure a safe landing due to WX, ice or anything else I should have totally avoided but for whatever reason failed to.

This is at odds with other's, and I can fully understand why, because I use to think in exactly the same way. In four years of flying with the CAPS and observing outcomes of both successful and unsuccessful off airport landings my attitude has changed to what it is now.

I understand others will cite that as lack of confidence, insufficient training, being a cop out and becoming a passenger for the ride rather than control the aircraft to the ground.

I firmly believe none of those are valid, but my firm opinion as PIC on what I consider the safest and least life threatening option when in an uncontrolled situation, under extreme pressure, into a totally unknown and unexpected landing area.

Sooner or later there will be one or more CAPS pulls that do not turn out well and this will skew the so far 100% success rate quite dramatically, The CAPS is far from risk free, high winds, landing on wires, or a road, all sorts of factors could go wrong, but for me this is still the choice I have made and hope if ever I need to take the decision it will be taken in time to save me and my PAX rather than leave it to late and then the option has gone.

Others have a totally different opinion, in fact I would guess the vast majority of the GA population would not agree with this stance and maybe think it irresponsible , a reasonable proportion of the Cirrus owners would agree but certainly a fair few would not.

It is not a fair to compare this attitude if say a 172 had a BRS would I choose the same strategy, maybe, maybe not, for off airfield landings, A 172 with bigger wheels, lower landing speed is much better equipped to land with a better outcome in random fields.

Pace

29th Jul 2012, 10:12

007H

We are probably not as far apart as when to pull the chute as you imagine!
Loss of control ? I would attempt recovery but add a ceiling where I knew there was still room to effectively use the chute! Failure to recover use the chute.

Engine failure ? I may use the chute depending on what's below !

Night ? Definate use of chute

Over fog or very low cloud use chute

Engine failure over densely built up area? I would try to Glide clear with responsibility to those on the ground! If no chance of gliding clear use chute!

Over water ? Depends on water conditions and winds although the two don't go together! Heavy winds heavy seas : )

I would avoid the chute where the aircraft is flyable but this discussion has opened up other options for using it !

Would it encourage me to push my luck ? Probably yes if I am
Being honest : )

Pace

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 10:24

Engine failure over densely built up area? I would try to Glide clear with responsibility to those on the ground! If no chance of gliding clear use chute!

Pace, agree with that, I think the area we would probably not agree over a pint is the risk ratio of landing in fields, we did cover that in detail so no need to go over again but I still think a very good debate as may provoke thoughts.

421C

29th Jul 2012, 10:25

When everything is running right flying is pretty easy it's when the
technology breaks down or things go wrong that we are left with basic flying and handling skills.
....
Technology and terminology is all fantastic but most important of all is still handling piloting skills which in themselves lead to correct descision making

Who is saying that handling is not important? No-one. But what handling skills don't do is trump everything else. I could equally reverse what you've said....eg. when handling skills break down, we are left with technology. Professional pilots of the 1930s or 1950s I am sure had a high level of your right-stuff "handling skills". But they crashed all the time.

Take CFIT. Historically, one of the biggest killers in CAT or GA. What the @?!%* does handling have to do with CFIT avoidance? There's a plateau beyond which no amount of navigation, CRM and SOP training is going to improve CFIT accident rates because crews of one or two human pilots are going to make mistakes. The vast improvement beyond this plateau was down, initially, to GPWS and, ultimately, EGPWS. Of course, it doesn't eliminate CFIT entirely, but it has done for all practical purposes enroute, although not in the final approach phase if people are going to descend below minima or attempt approaches in IMC to VFR airports.

It's easy, sadly, to read of CFIT accidents in light aircraft in Europe. I don't ever remember reading of an enroute CFIT in a light aircraft equipped with TAWS. You could argue that TAWS in light aircraft might lead to "over-reliance" and over-confidence and thus more danger. But, I believe the evidence is that this is totally false and that TAWS is a major safety benefit.

With technology, training and handling, my sense is the right answer is balance. Let's use the Air France crash in the South Atlantic as an example. It led to loads of forum pontificators bemoaning the loss of real-man handling skills in airline flying. As a totally non-expert GA bloke I am not going to have a view with much validity, but, nevertheless, my view is that modern airline technology and training methods avoid 10 or 100 accidents for every one that could be attributed to a lack of handling skill. I am sure the industry has taken on lessons from the AF tragedy, but I doubt it will change the balance I mention in terms of technology and training.

In GA, let's face it, the balance of training is towards handling and maneouvers. It's better in the US, but certainly very traditional in the UK. A Cirrus pilot still has to complete courses and pass checkrides predominantly related to handling. Being realistic, after 100 years of people being taught to fly small airplanes I don't think we will see major improvements in what handling skills can be expected of a typical private pilot. Similarly, I don't see that serious GA accidents are significantly down to handling skill issues, certainly not ones that could be avoided by more 'extreme' aerobatic or spin training.

It seems to me that the Cirrus philosophy is down to augmenting the basic private pilot's "hygiene level" handling skills with safety technology. The recommendations of the Cirrus training community on CAPS deployment I think simply recognise the reality of risk. If CAPS has a very low risk (say 5%), then deployment in a scenario where attempting a non-CAPS emergency landing or recovery has a risk of more than 5% is the right thing. It is not "complacent" or "over-reliant", it is the correct decision-making. Yes, the success rate of forced landings or loss of control at higher altitudes should be quite high. But if the success rate of CAPS deployment is higher, then shouldn't pilots deploy?

My sense of your concern about "over reliance" is that, in fact, the Cirrus community became concerned with "under reliance" - ie. that there were too many fatal accidents without CAPS deployment where pilots were relying on their handling skills and not on the technology, hence the emphasis on deployment in recent years.

Note that this is entirely a statistical argument. One rarely reads of an accident report where better actions by the pilot wouldn't have avoided a tragedy. Of course one could point back to that and say "well if he'd had 5hrs proper aeros training etc etc". But the point on CAPS is that given the realistic plateau that one can get to with private pilot handling training, there are many scenarios where CAPS deployment is statistically the better course of action, even if someone could read about it afterwards and think with superior handling skills, they'd have saved the day.

brgds
421C

peterh337

29th Jul 2012, 10:45

Except that population stats are not valid for any individual except the average one, who probably doesn't exist.

If I have an engine failure, and I see loads of nice looking fields (which frankly is the case most of the time when flying in half decent wx) and somebody tells me the chance of killing myself in a field landing is 5%, and the chance of killing myself under the chute is 3%, I will still go for the field landing.

Perhaps with a "decision height" equal to the min chute activation height...

It's like the stats about flying being similarly risky to motorcycle riding. With about 100k miles on bikes, in the 1970s and 80s, I don't buy that at all. Bikes are much more risky to the careful rider because most bike deaths are (and always have been) caused by a car driver - often in a manner where the car driver gets away with it. With all the half blind drivers, and many crazy drivers, I wouldn't ride a bike now if you paid me for it.

The other thing is that if I land smack down vertically with a say 20G shock under a chute, and the plane is salvaged and repaired, I will still want to chuck away all the avionics, but the insurance company isn't going to pay for that.

Many people say that the instant your engine stops, the plane is the property of the insurance company. That is actually true only if you are a self fly hire flyer (whatever happens you can stick a finger up and walk away) or in very narrow circumstances (engine failure at night, above "impossible" terrain, above a forest, above a low overcast/fog) but the rest of the time an aircraft owner will be considering his flying future which is likely to be impacted by a really stupid aircraft write-off decision.

I consider myself to be an average pilot, but given a decent starting height I would hope to be able to do a field landing, in the same way I can fly a glide approach onto a 18m wide runway, etc. And if I am not established on a nice "final" at the chute decision height, I will pull the chute.

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 10:47

421C good post,

I think in the USA there are several Cirrus CFIT with TAWS enroute, they do have much bigger mountains that certainly you sometimes wonder in ammazment at what on earth was the pilot was thinking taking off in the weather / night / icing etc etc. It happens and Pilots in all GA types will keep on killing themselves.

Anyway back to this CAPS pull, preliminary report has come out and I have to say a bit confusing, did he have total loss of power or shut the engine down? which would seem odd for a prop over speed.

Either way he felt he lost control by around 1000ft despite initially have sufficient altitude and speed. Once realised he had lost control and not going to make the runway he pulled the chute so in my mind did the right thing and walked away.

NTSB Identification: ERA12LA473
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, July 22, 2012 in Pickens, SC
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N138CK
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 22, 2012, at 1705 eastern daylight time, N138CK, a Cirrus SR-22, was substantially damaged during a forced landing in Pickens, South Carolina. The commercial pilot and three passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the flight that departed Cobb County Airport-Mc Collum Field (RYY), Atlanta, Georgia, and was destined for Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO), Greensboro, North Carolina. The business flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91.

According to the pilot, he fueled the aircraft "to the tabs" and performed a preflight and run-up inspection prior to takeoff from RYY. No abnormalities were noted during the inspections. The pilot departed, and as the airplane climbed through an altitude of 800 feet, he noted the oil temperature was "in the green" (about 190 deg) and the airspeed was about 130 knots.

A few minutes later, the pilot felt a "wiggle," or a slight vibration from the engine, as the airplane continued to climb. The engine RPMs began to rise rapidly and he noted an engine oil pressure warning on the primary flight display (PFD). The pilot applied full mixture, turned the fuel pump on, and manipulated the throttle. He also assured the magnetos were in the "on" position. The pilot thought he may have had a propeller overspeed condition, so he reduced the throttle; however, the RPMs remained high. He then secured the engine and declared an emergency with Greer Approach Control, with whom he had been communicating. The air traffic controller informed the pilot that Pickens County Airport (LQK) was at his "10:00 and 4 miles," and the pilot turned toward the field and prepared for a forced landing. He noted the RPMs were not decreasing as he pitched the airplane down for the descent (the airspeed was about 110-120 knots). The pilot attempted unsuccessfully to restart the engine, and then re-secured it while on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern for runway 23 at LQK. He believed he had plenty of airspeed and altitude, when he turned base at 1,200 feet, and added one notch of flaps.

As the pilot added the flaps, he felt the handling characteristics of the airplane change, and it began to feel "mushy." He then retracted the notch of flaps and the condition became worse. As the airplane descended through 1,000 feet, the pilot felt as if he had "lost control of the airplane" and decided to pull the emergency parachute. The parachute deployed and within seconds the airplane settled into the trees. The airplane remained suspended in the trees until emergency personnel arrived on-scene and rescued the occupants.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed the presence of oil on the underside of the airplane. An examination of the engine was planned for a later date after the airplane was recovered from the trees.

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 11:06

If I have an engine failure, and I see loads of nice looking fields (which frankly is the case most of the time when flying in half decent wx) and somebody tells me the chance of killing myself in a field landing is 5%, and the chance of killing myself under the chute is 3%, I will still go for the field landing.

Peter that is a perfectly reasonable argument and strategy and probably a fairly safe one, the key is to at least constantly consider CAPS before it gets to late and then not an option.

Manufacturers recommendations is 2000ft but it is pretty much from practical evidence still proven successful at 1000ft and much lower, I would still pull lower if in a bad place.

My main personal problem with your strategy is the ability to positively identify a "nice field" what looks good at 1000ft can look horrible on the ground and the Cirrus is not forgiving in marginal terrain with an awful lot of energy at anywhere from 60-70 knots or higher if bothched.

I also think the chance of killing yourself, landing under stress in the best looking filed available is higher than 5%, who know but I would think death or serious injury in a Cirrus in this scenario maybe somewhere from 10-20% for the average guys. But I appreciate my guess no better than yours.

The stretching the glide if coming up short is another problem leading to a fatal stall.

Pace

29th Jul 2012, 12:00

007H

It does worry me your concern at a forced landing!
If a pilot stretches the glide and stalls that is a fault in the pilot or training.
With a forced landing even with a slight wind your ground speed will not be that high.
The difference is you will be in command of where you go in the air and even on the ground.
If the field is rougher than you thought you may damage the undercarriage ?
But I do not believe that there are that many fatalities or serious injuries from
Forced landings as long as you keep the thing flying and do not stall out!
With the chute pulled you no longer have any control and on windy days may not just have to suffer a high descent rate into the ground but also 30 odd kts forward speed.
You will also wreck the aircraft while in a forced landing you may have no damage or minimal damage compared to the chute.
Even taking out a hedge is not that big a deal!
Yes NO suitable landing site pull the chute but I still do not see the chute as an answer to all!

Pace

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 16:34

It does worry me your concern at a forced landing!
If a pilot stretches the glide and stalls that is a fault in the pilot or training.

While we practice PFl's on generally good vis days with a cosy instructor sat by our side (for most) and often go around at x 100ft it is a whole different ball game with the full on stress of a genuine engine failure, adrenaline pumping around and a host of other worries, plenty have stalled it in when trying a forced landing including several Cirrus Fatal's of Pilots far more competent than myself.

The difference is you will be in command of where you go in the air and even on the ground.

You will have a degree of control but massively reduced and if you do not like what you see as you get closer then options are minimal to say the least.

If the field is rougher than you thought you may damage the undercarriage ?

Or cartwheel, flip, bounce and still stall it in.

But I do not believe that there are that many fatalities or serious injuries from Forced landings as long as you keep the thing flying and do not stall out!

As above, you, I or any other Pilot could stall in a forced landing situation, how ever competent they think they are, it could and does happen.

With the chute pulled you no longer have any control and on windy days may not just have to suffer a high descent rate into the ground but also 30 odd kts forward speed.

Generally very true other than the rate of descent at 17knots I do not consider that high, the more worrying factor is a strong wind could as well as add to forward momentum it could drag the aircraft once landed, that is a genuine risk to be considered when deciding on using CAPS.

You will also wreck the aircraft while in a forced landing you may have no damage or minimal damage compared to the chute.

Various Chute pull aircraft have been fully repaired and put back in service but that would not be a consideration I would factor in to my decision making process. If I write off the aircraft so be it.

You may have minimal damage in a forced landing or you may have a dead pilot and passengers, the odds are to high in my book to be landing Cirrus in fields.

I flew over Kent today with this in my mind today and to be frank there were few fields I would fancy when you factor in those with high crops, steepish inclines, trees at each end, walls and sturdy looking fences, Animals etc A few weeks ago I would have added water logged fields to the list.

007helicopter

29th Jul 2012, 16:38

Apologies for being a stubborn bugger

No worries, so am I..

Genghis the Engineer

29th Jul 2012, 17:25

I wonder how much this debate is flavoured by various pilots practice in emergencies?

Jock and I often seem to be on the same side in debates like this, and I wonder how much this is flavoured by the currency we try to maintain?

I was raised at my mother's knee (well, an RAF flying instructor or 6 anyhow) who brought me up to believe firmly that regularly practicing emergencies is an essential part of your personal life insurance.

So, most months I will take the time to do a PFL or two, a stall or two, and usually something else - maybe a flapless approach or a simulated fire. And so, whilst I won't claim I'm perfect, I'm reasonably confident of my ability to handle most stuff going wrong with reasonable competence.

But, particularly since I've become an instructor, I've become very aware that many PPLs do not practice PFLs, or any other potential emergency, from one year to the next. This perhaps explains why given the option of a parachute many PPLs choose to plan for the "CAPS option" in preference to many other things that they have been trained to do, but never practiced since.

G

peterh337

29th Jul 2012, 17:28

I wonder how many Cirruses where the chute wasn't pulled but the aircraft was in fully flying condition (e.g. "just" an engine failure) ended up injuring or killing occupants as a result of a forced landing which was attempted to an apparently suitable site but which for some reason didn't work out.

My recollection of no-chute-pulled crashes is that most were not survivable.

I also wonder if the aircraft tends to catch fire easily. There is a video out there from a security camera, showing an SR20/22 crashing into a car park, at a fair old flying speed, and exploding into a huge fireball literally the instant it hits the ground.

paulp

29th Jul 2012, 17:52

The only burn death in a Cirrus was a case where the pilot's seatbelt jammed. The copilot got out.

There is at least one case where the pilot had an engine failure at altitude and died during the off airport landing. A partner in the plane said the pilot was dismissive of the chute and had stated he believed an off airport landing would be a better choice.

Fuji Abound

29th Jul 2012, 21:06

Genghid exactly my point for a number of posts now.

Its all very well those preaching how well they would do in a forced landing all i can add is i have pulled the leaver on enough pilots to add that i agree with you many will not do a good job however much they may think otherwise.

Put me in an aircraft with a pilot drawn randomnly and i would far rather they pull the chute that demonstrate their forced landing skills.

With apologies thats the way i see it and i suspect just as you if you ask most instructors they would agree with you.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 06:20

Fuji

But I thought all the Cirrus pilots were highly trained and far advanced over pilots from 30 years ago?

Other than stall spin accidents in a forced landing which are avoidable what are the statistics for serious injury/death in a forced landing?

What is the CIRRUS view on this because it does not recommend using the chute unless a suitable landing area cannot be found for a forced landing.
You would be going against PPL training as well as the manufacturers recommendation so it might be wise to get the CAA blessing as well as CIRRUS?
I am being serious with this as you may be right but if you are you still need the CAA and Cirrus on board for what is a controversial new way

Pace

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 06:54

Put me in an aircraft with a pilot drawn randomnly and i would far rather they pull the chute that demonstrate their forced landing skills.

Fuji for me put me in a Cirrus with an instructors or professional Pilot and I would rather they pull the Chute than demonstrate their forced landing skills, they may well have a better chance than your average guy but there would in my opinion be plenty who did not make a very good job of it.

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 07:15

But I thought all the Cirrus pilots were highly trained and far advanced over pilots from 30 years ago?

Pace old chap that is nonsense and you know it, nobody is trying to make that suggestion, there are plenty of poorly or inadequately trained Cirrus Pilots just like any other GA type.

Other than stall spin accidents in a forced landing which are avoidable what are the statistics for serious injury/death in a forced landing?

I am not sure, it is also hard to come up with a statistic as I accept a successful forced landing is not, or I do not think an incident that needs reporting. So is a non event from a reporting point of view.

Forced landings and CAPS for engine failure or fuel exhaustion are fairly rare, most deaths are still CFIT, VFR into IMC and handling on aproach / landing. All Pilot error.

The risk of dying in a Cirrus (and I assume most GA aircraft) due to mechanical failure is small.

I am being serious with this as you may be right but if you are you still need the CAA and Cirrus on board for what is a controversial new way

I am serious, why do I as PIC need to get any one on board, CAA or Cirrus or anyone?

I have made my own mind up of my strategy. Each PIC with the tools available can decide from their training, knowledge and skill what is in their opinion their best chance of survival and when and when not to use the chute.

As you said the only area most of us disagree strongly in is the choice of a forced landing off airport or the use as a general preference of the Chute in this situation.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 07:27

007H

Because there are training procedures for engine failure and forced landings which are part of the PPL and inground as a SOP by the CAA.
This would go against all we are taught so would need an approval by the CAA who would have to satisfy themselves that there is a safety case in using the chute as a SOP!

They in turn would consult with the manufacturers for their opinion.
Their opinion does not follow your own and as such to make up your own procedures could cause insurance problems.

Ie worst case scenario flying over a large tarmac runway you have an engine failure and pull the chute.
The insurance company would be in their rights to question paying out over a home made non approved procedure

Pace

mad_jock

30th Jul 2012, 07:56

I have made my own mind up of my strategy. Each PIC with the tools available can decide from their training, knowledge and skill what is in their opinion their best chance of survival

That really isn't the case I am afraid. If you encounter an event that isn't defined you can make it up on the hoof otherwise you are leaving your backside wide open.

I know this isn't normally a Private pilot concern but there have been quite a few cases where Pro pilots have stepped outside the normal abnormal procedures and then been taken to task afterwards and also there estates have been sued post event.

There is currently huge court cases with AF477 with the company manufacturer and pilots estates all involved.

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 08:09

This perhaps explains why given the option of a parachute many PPLs choose to plan for the "CAPS option" in preference to many other things that they have been trained to do, but never practiced since.

Genghis I agree with your point, other than many PPL's who fly Cirrus have had virtually zero training on using the chute, never practiced it in a sim, pretty much forget about it day by day flying.

When the crunch comes and they need it they are totally unprepared and have no strategy and die with a perfectly good chute on board.

So I think the general training of Cirrus Pilots has fallen well short and maybe reflects something like a string of 13 fatal's and in the same period only 2 CAPS pulls, this specific one being one of them.

Rod1

30th Jul 2012, 08:13

mad_jock

30th Jul 2012, 08:24

As a open question 007 what do you think should be the minimum training and should there be recurrent type training?

It almost sounds like you need a type rating for this machine.

You seem to need a far greater depth of system knowledge and procedures than your normal sod it read the POH kick the tyres light the fire SEP.

Fuji Abound

30th Jul 2012, 08:25

Now Pace we have been through this. Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk. Whatever the rights or wrongs, no regulatory authority or insurance company is going to challenge the commanders assessment of whether or not he considered there was little or no risk. For my own interest, I have started a trawl through the AAIB reports; it is interesting the number of forced landing that do involve injury. If I find time I might post my findings. There is an interesting report I was reading only just now. Unfortunately the pilot and his apssenger were seriously injured. In the interview he was frank. He was asked the last time he had practiced a PFL; it was during his last flight review over eighteen months previous. Of how many pilots is that true? In fact how many pilots aren't asked to demonstrate a PFL during their review? I know of a few. Its all very well your highlighting what pilots SHOULD do but as I have said before we live in a real world, in which pilots DON'T regularly practice PFLs, in fact they probably don't practice them at all.

Not withstanding as you well know the PPL is designed to cover the "basic" elements of pilot training. It considers the use of a chute no more than the use of a personal parachute. The CAA are happy I fly aeros in the UK without a chute, whereas in France it would be illegal for me to do so, and I could be prosecuted or the insurance company could refuse to pay out, if I had an accident while flying aeros without a chute.

I did come across another interesting statistic. If just half the pilots involved in fatal Cirrus accidents in circumstances where they could have used the chute and did not, had deployed the chute, then the Cirrus fatality record would be significantly less than the rest of the GA fleet (in fact by over half). Of course that assumes the chute changed the outcome, but I suspect that is a safe bet in the majority of cases.

Again while I enjoy the debate I would put it to you that your dis-service is as great but sowing seeds that a pilot should be reluctant to use the chute on the basis that he SHOULD be able to carry out a successful forced landing. I would argue (albeit based entirely on my own perception) that most pilots would be better off pulling the chute rather than ever considering a conventional forced landing if their sole priority was to minimise personal injury. How often when an instructor does some PFLs does the chat go as follow;

First PFL - 500 feet, so are we going to make the field or go through the hedge?

Pilot; hmm, its not looking good is it?

Instructor - how about another go.

Instructor - third time lucky, then. ;)

Trouble is when it happens for real you only get one chance, and there is no instructor to suggest your choice of field, glide angle etc might not be a good one.

I think the outcome of many forced landing is OK because it seems to me aircraft are surprisingly good at going through hedges, walls, roofs, etc and more often than not flipping over. Unfortunately that means the outcome can be a bit of a lottery and even a "good" landing in a field can result in an inverted aircraft with the problems than can ensue.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 09:17

Fuji you and 007H may be totally correct as I have said this is new ground and goes against conventional thinking and pilot training!
That does not mean you or 007H are wrong as your arguments are convincing!
But regardless without support from
The manufacturer and the CAA we are left in uncharted waters!
The Cirrus SOP should read " in event of engine failure we recommend in most circumstances that the chute is deployed! Only if the pilot is over a secure landing site and very confident of his abilities should a forced landing be contemplated. In
Most circumstances Cirrus recommend an immediate deployment of the chute regarding engine failure ".
Surely you must see that it is not me you need to convince but the CAA and Cirrus who have better access to relevant statistics.
It is very raw of you to accuse me of encouraging pilots not to use the chute when all inam
Doing is stating the CAA and Cirrus position !
Btw you are convincing me slowly : )

mad_jock

30th Jul 2012, 10:12

G I agree that currency is a big factor.

Also linked into this is the number of times you have done said procedures.

While working as an instructor everything gets hard wired so to speak because your doing them 10 times a week. So even if I haven't flown a SEP in a year and get a PFL or stalling there isn't much thinking happens and it also doesn't matter if it on the blind side either. Most PFL's demonstrated were always LH circuits so most of the time I never saw the landing point anyway after choosing until we rolled out.

The whole thing I believe with forced landings is the way they are taught. If they have always been knocked off at 500ft your going to have problems. If your instructor was getting you to below fence level you are far far more prepared for the unlikely event. Yes from the instructor point of view there is more risk of the engine farting when you want to go around but...... The students are trained properly.

Its the same with the twin stuff these days. My last LPC the examinor failed the inside engine in a 30 degree climbing V2+10 turn. After I sorted it out I did mention he was a brave bastard to do that in the aircraft and it should maybe be left to the sim. But the rudder was in and nose lowered before I had even realised that the engine was being failed. He laughed and said don't worry I won't do it with an FO.

Did make me think though about some of the noise abatement V2+10 departure procedures if some of them shouldn't be Captain only departures.

And G I would reword that post it could be interpreted as you had lots of "uncles" as a kid.

englishal

30th Jul 2012, 11:24

There was some work done on engine failures in the UK from around 2000 which came out at around;

50% no significant damage, no injury

25% Significant damage minor injury

25% Significant damage, serious injury / death

I strongly suspect that a busy guy with a Cirrus would rather rely on the tec than “waste” time practising PFL’s etc every month.
Interestingly the Fatality figure in the USA is 17%.

And that brings me to point 2, in general, UK flight instruction is rubbish. Training in the USA seems much more tailored to what you want to fly and how to use the kit. I bet, for example, someone who buys a new cirrus, does their PPL in THAT cirrus with a FI who specialises in training IN the Cirrus, then does the Cirrus FITS course, and knows what every knob an button does is a far better Cirrus pilot than even a UK FI who has been asked to "convert" someone to the Cirrus. They might not be that great a Tomahawk pilot though, but that doesn't matter as they will never ever fly such a piece of rubbish in their life.

Try finding a FI in the UK who can teach you to fly GPS approaches with your 430W? Well I did actually, but the FI is a US CFII.......In fact, while I am on a rant, try finding a FI who has a valid IR in the UK. Ok, if they have come straight from Oxford, but ask them 13 monts later if it is still valid.

People who keep arguing about the parachute do so because they don't understand it. It is white-mans-magic to them, not how they were taught...oooohhh noooo mrs, I would never take to the lifeboat in the event of the ship sinking. I would....

If the factory says...If you use the parachute higher than X altitude, less than X knots, then there is a 2% chance you're going to kill yourself, and your engine fails above X and you are below X speed and you know there is a 17% chance you will die carrying out a forced landing.....hmmm, pull the red knob, no question, unless you are ASSURED landing.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 11:27

Rod

The 25% serious damage injury or death figure!
Do we know a breakdown oh those FLs ?
My guess is a large percentage will
Be stall spin?
That comes back to training as there is NO reason for an aircraft to stall other than incorrect pilot handling or training!
The idea that you are better landing into something unfriendly rather than crashing from a stall spin!
I would like to know the stats where serious injury or death are a result of a successful forced landing under control into unsuitable or an insufficient landing site?
I bet that potion is not great ?

Pace

Fuji Abound

30th Jul 2012, 11:37

Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk.

in event of engine failure we recommend in most circumstances that the chute is deployed! Only if the pilot is over a secure landing site and very confident of his abilities should a forced landing be contemplated.

There is very little difference between the first statement and your second line. In other words for the pilot to believe he can make a forced landing with little or no risk he needs to be confident in his ability and happy the site is good. If not, Cirrus are saying consider using the chute. I see nothing ambiguous, likely to confuse the CAA or the insurers.

Your first line adds dangerous ambiguity by including the phrase "in most circumstances". The circumstances have been made clear. If the pilot considers there is more than a little risk associated with a conventional forced landing, use the chute. He might consider this to be the case for all sorts of reasons including his skills not being up to scratch given the weather and conditions or because he considers the available sites are unsuitable.

As I commented earlier the USA is so litigious that you would not give an edict unless you could guarantee the outcome; you cant and no one has suggested otherwise.

10 instructors current and up to speed could make perfectly good forced landings and in most circumstances their decision would be the correct decision, and 10 long in the tooth PPLs who have also long given up practicing forced landings could find it goes badly wrong in 50% of the cases and so in most circumstances they would be right to reach for the chute.

The simple truth as I suspect you know is the lawyers will have laboured carefully over this one, and concluded this is the correct balance between laying themselves open for a writ and over gilding the lily. I think they have got it about right.

Rod1

30th Jul 2012, 11:43

If the UK rate is 25% for serious injury or death, then saying that a US rate of 17% death is better is a bit of a stretch. I had the option of putting a BRS in my aircraft, I researched it and decided against. The weight of the BRS will have caused some fatal accidents due to reduced performance.

Rod1

Rod1

30th Jul 2012, 11:54

Pace,

I agree with your logic. The stats were from an article I found around 2000. The conclusion split was the bit I kept in my head and it is why I practice PFL’s regularly. I find it hard to understand why a pilot in current practice would have an issue unless he was very unlucky. Glider pilots land out all the time and the death rate is very very low.

Rod1

peterh337

30th Jul 2012, 12:05

I would be very suprised if 25% of forced landings that follow an engine failure result in a serious injury (which I gather is a broken leg or worse) or death.

If I really have a 25% chance of doing myself in when faced with the "99% scenario" (fields more or less everywhere) then I ought to take up knitting.

englishal

30th Jul 2012, 12:15

PFL's in essence are easy. You just glide to the ground and land.

The hard bit is deciding where to land, especially with limited landing spots, and also recognising when you have to glide to the ground (i.e. you engine has stopped and immediate action is requred).

When I had the Rallye, landing spots were never an issue as you could land that plane on a 6 pence if you had to. I also imagine that VLA's are easier to force land as give them a 20 kt head wind and they blow away. A cirrus (and other heavier types) on the other hand is heavier and faster and so landing spots are more limited and there will be more kinetic energy when landing. More kinetic energy = more chance of damage if it goes wrong, so you'd also have to factor that into your "do i pull the chute" equation.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 13:15

Fuji

There is a massive difference between Cirrus recommending a conventional forced landing as a SOP and what 007H and you are suggesting which is that the SOP should be use of the Chute as standard with a forced landing only if the pilot is confident and the landing site perfect!
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?

Pace

Fuji Abound

30th Jul 2012, 13:30

Pace

You cant keep putting words into their mouth as much as you might wish.

I have posted what Cirrus have to say. I think its clear and I am happy with it.

Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk.

If you, I, or anyone else feels confident they can make a forced landing with little or no risk then don't pull the chute. If you don't think you can, consider the chute. In fact since physics rather dictates you have only two choices I guess the word consider is pretty pointless but I guess the lawyers might think otherwise. ;)

However I think we are going around in circles again.

Fact is there have been over 40 pulls for various reasons no complaints from the CAA, the FAA and no refused insurance payments of which I am aware. I am not aware of any successful claims against Cirrus either so I guess those that matter are happy with where we are.

Pace

30th Jul 2012, 13:55

Fuji

Can you or someone post the recommended Cirrus procedure for a forced Landing with engine failure as I am on my I phone posting.
In its entirety please as your snippet was not what someone posted before in the thread or previous thread?
I am sure if the evidence was so overwhelming on liability grounds they would recommend the chute for engine failure .

Pace

paulp

30th Jul 2012, 14:12

Here (http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2011/04/articles/lawsuits-1/ntsb-maintenanceinduced-fuel-starvation-caused-cirrus-crash-at-morton-washington/) is an interesting lawsuit after a Cirrus accident. Fuel starvation was the result of improper maintenance. The controversial part is that the pilot's estate is being sued because he did NOT use the chute.

As far as guidance, the POH says:

Engine Failure In Flight

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide
speed. 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. Refer to
Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and
landing considerations.

You can find the complete POH here (http://www.cirruslink.com/mycirrus/onlinepoh.aspx).

paulp

30th Jul 2012, 14:21

More from POH:

Emergency Procedures SR22

Landing Emergencies

If all attempts to restart the engine fail and a forced landing is
imminent, select a suitable field and prepare for the landing. If flight
conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment
may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS
deployment scenarios and landing considerations.
A suitable field should be chosen as early as possible so that
maximum time will be available to plan and execute the forced landing.
For forced landings on unprepared surfaces, use full flaps if possible.
Land on the main gear and hold the nose wheel off the ground as long
as possible. If engine power is available, before attempting an “off
airport” landing, fly over the landing area at a low but safe altitude to
inspect the terrain for obstructions and surface conditions.
• Note •
Use of full (100%) flaps will reduce glide distance. Full flaps
should not be selected until landing is assured.
Emergency Landing Without Engine Power
1. Best Glide Speed ........................................................ ESTABLISH
2. Radio............................................. Transmit (121.5 MHz) MAYDAY
giving location and intentions
3. Transponder ........................................................... SQUAWK 7700
4. If off airport, ELT ........................................................... ACTIVATE
5. Power Lever ............................................................ ................IDLE
6. Mixture ............................................................ ................. CUTOFF
7. Fuel Selector.................................................... ........................OFF
8. Ignition Switch ............................................................ ..............OFF
9. Fuel Pump........................................................ ........................OFF
10.Flaps (when landing is assured) ............................................100%
11.Master Switches.................................................... ...................OFF
12.Seat Belt(s) ............................................................ ....... SECURED

A and C

30th Jul 2012, 15:25

At this point it might be worth noting that the attributes of the way composite structures absorb energy when loaded beond the design limits that make the Cirrus as safe as it is when the chute is pulled also come into play when the aircraft is involved in a forced landing and hits something during the landing roll.

A bit like a wooden structure except eighty years late !

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 19:23

As a open question 007 what do you think should be the minimum training and should there be recurrent type training?

It almost sounds like you need a type rating for this machine.

Jock I can not answer the minimum training across the board as a guy who is current on Avidyne or Garmin glass on another type will have no trouble quickly feeling comfortable in a Cirrus.

A competent Pilot in most GA types within 3-5 hours will be quite happy physically flying the plane in good VFR, although will proably have his head inside to much looking at the gizmos - getting use to speed, number's and landing profile etc is fairly straight forward, but they will struggle like hell in IMC until he is fully competent with the GNS430's and glass and I would say however good he is on steam gauge's would be a liability until some serious study and practice on the avioincs.

For me I did 5 hours flying, 5 hours ground, at the time I was fairly rusty and had not flown for 9 months. This for me in hind site was not enough and I should have done more.

It took me 30-40 hours of actual flying to begin to get comfortable with the avionics and a good chunk more before happy with approaches in genuine IMC but that is just me.

I personally think mandatory recurrent training would be good and improve safety but heck it could just piss of those who don't want it. The more regulation I assume the less Pilots will stay in the GA world.

COPA offer a really good recurrent training called CPPP (Cirrus Pilot and Profiency) it has some of the best Cirrus instructors from around the world, happens extensively around the world including 2 or 3 in Europe each year. I have done three in total and consider invaluable to advance my personal skills and knowledge.

BUT - it only preaches to the Choir.

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 19:32

There is a massive difference between Cirrus recommending a conventional forced landing as a SOP and what 007H and you are suggesting which is that the SOP should be use of the Chute as standard with a forced landing only if the pilot is confident and the landing site perfect!
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?

I do not think Cirrus / COPA / Insurers / CAA / FAA disapprove of what I intend to do, but none of them will say this or that is best as it is PIC choice, I just happen to have made my choice before I even take off.

Within COPA their are different opinions and arguments about forced landing versus chute, so it is not a COPA policy, they are just a volunteer association with no teeth but have many, many very long term seasoned pilots / instructors / professional pilots / etc who have influenced me to what is yes, I suppose an unconventional way of thinking.

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 19:55

I did a short amount of flying with a very experienced Cirrus instructor who also happened to be responsible for the training and recurrent training of a Substantial Cirrus Air taxi company that employed I think hundreds, but lets just say for this discussion Dozens of commercial pilots who would carry their passengers under FAA Part 135 Regs.

As I recall the story E&OE

So he would do a six month check on all pilots that included a PFL and dead stick landing over an airport at around 3000ft, a surprising amount did not make the runway every time, after a while they changed the policy of the test that if they did not make a decision to pull the chute by 1000ft, and if they then fell short or not accurate on the runway then they would fail the check ride and lose employment, unsurprisingly this reinforced the use of the chute very effectively.

Additionally it became SOP of this company in the event of an off airport landing the Pilot was instructed to use the Chute.

This story plus several others that over time influenced me personally to make it my own SOP

mad_jock

30th Jul 2012, 19:59

Thats fair comment 007 and in a none condescending way you sound like you have well in hand and have a professional manner in attacking your flying.

Whats contained in the ground school? Full system knowlege or is it mainly based on the pushing buttons of the avionics?

I personally think mandatory recurrent training would be good and improve safety but heck it could just piss of those who don't want it. The more regulation I assume the less Pilots will stay in the GA world.

I know its a hard balance, personally I enjoy recurrent training and also tech refreshers, always learn something new. Some of my collegues think this is strange but although it hasn't really saved my bacon it has made a few situations far less stressful than they might of been.

Suprised you can try and get a reduction in insurance costs for being a member of COPA and doing the courses.

007helicopter

30th Jul 2012, 20:17

Whats contained in the ground school? Full system knowlege or is it mainly based on the pushing buttons of the avionics?

Ground school was partially a basic sim to practice buttons as well as the theory of the back up systems and redundancy of systems etc, to be honest a lot at the time went over my head and was quite over whelming which is why I could have done with more hours.

The CPPP's are great because you can choose between different areas you want to work on, avionics, weather, CDM, avionics, engine management etc plus another 5 hours practical flying on what ever skill area you choose.

Also I think some transition training offered falls well short of what is required, there are some very good Cirrus instructors who are passionate about passing on their knowledge but I have had checkouts or BFR's from some where to be frank they are lacking and I feel sorry for their actual students.