Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012 [Archive]

Pace

10th Oct 2012, 14:36

Mad Jock

Listening to that report I do not know what to say. Fuji and others have convinced me about the benefits of the chute and I am all for this as the way ahead in the future of other SEPs.

Listening to the report I must admit on thinking what on earth was this guy doing flying approaches as he was a totally incapable instrument pilot who wrecked an aircraft due to his inabilities.

No wonder his girlfriend got a commercial back as I doubt she will ever set foot in an aircraft with this pilot again!

A bit like a second engine on a twin the chute gives options and is an excellent addition to safety for the pilot who respects that and uses it as a back up to his skills.

This is worrying as it shows a poor and incapable instrument pilot who should not have been flying in conditions he was not up to!

How much the chute lead him to fly in conditions he was not up to ????
I have my suspicions ?

Regardless thankfully for the chute they survived but there are some hard lessons to be learnt and some big cautions in false security that the chute may bring! If having it there encourages pilots to fly in conditions they or the aircraft are not up to then its a worrying addition.

That pilot was not up to a fairly easy approach and cloudbase.

One good thing he was humble about it so lets hope he gets some proper training and competence before heading off into the clouds again.

Pace

Fuji Abound

10th Oct 2012, 14:48

The point of the post was more to drive at what a VFR only pilot might have done in these circumstances given the other equipment available to him and at what point he would have been "right" to bail out. Also I think the recording is an interesting insight into how quickly things can go wrong for any pilot straying into conditions beyond his ability. I get the impression its fair to say the pilot was inexperienced - he says he had been flying for 10 years and had had an engine quit on him and obviously pulled off a successful forced landing.

Contacttower

10th Oct 2012, 14:53

I couldn't work out...was this guy actually IR rated or not?

mad_jock

10th Oct 2012, 15:07

Neither could I Contact.

Pace I wasn't having a go at the chute or having the chute or even using it. More of WTF was he doing in that bit of sky in the first place with or without a chute.

dublinpilot

10th Oct 2012, 15:25

I very much doubt that a chute would lul a VFR only pilot to fly an approach in instrument conditions.

I could imagine that a highly automated aircraft with a full 3 axis autopilot and large glass screen avionics could "encourage" a VFR only pilot to let the aircraft (autopilot) fly the IFR stuff while they just watched ready to take over when they became VFR again, but the chute would seem a misnomer to me.

mad_jock

10th Oct 2012, 15:30

And if he had that and had it hooked in why did he loose controls with what appears to be a case of the leans.

Pace

10th Oct 2012, 15:31

The interviewer made a comment at the end that two blocks away there was an area full of kids skate boarding obviously implying that it was lucky they came down where they did.
The implications are that pulling the chute over built up areas may one day bring about an aircraft landing under the chute on top of people or cars and the bad press that will bring the chute.

playing it back it is unclear whether the pilot was on an instrument approach or flying VMC on top expecting a 2000 foot cloud base when it turned out to be 700 feet.

Either way one has to question the pilot as he was obviously in cloud without the skills to be there.

That brings the concern that while the chute is a wonderful thing the down side is that it may give a false sense of security which encourages pilots to fly out of their abilities at night or in weather which itself creates accidents which would not occur through caution in conventional aircraft!

Fuji I am not attacking the chute as you have convinced me of its worth even for SOME engine failures but I still have concerns on the false sense of security angle which this may imply! As well as training and education which maybe required into the possible results of the chute in potentially dangerous locations not just to people on the ground but to pilots too.

Further thinking and training needs to be addressed to avoid that pitfall.

Pace

dublinpilot

10th Oct 2012, 15:54

And if he had that and had it hooked in why did he loose controls with what appears to be a case of the leans.

Sorry MJ. I wasn't specifically refering to this case. It seem obvious that he wasn't using the auto pilot, though he could of course been using it and turned it off thinking it had failed. Very unlikely though.

I was making a more general point.

As a VFR only pilot I could not see myself being even remotely tempted to make an IFR approach because I could pull the chute if it went wrong. After all if it all goes wrong I'm going to be very close to the ground and I'm going to have an aircraft which is written off at best.

On the other hand if I figured the autopilot could fly me to 200ft on an ILS and the cloud base was 700ft, and the only thing I had to worry about was an autopilot failure in the few minutes it takes to make the approach, I could see how that might be tempting. I wouldn't do it, but I could see how someone would be tempted and I have a feeling that a fair amount of that might go on. No real evidence, just a feeling from some of the accident reports that I've read.

Pace

10th Oct 2012, 16:01

DublinPilot

I can see where a not proficient instrument pilot knowing he has a chute might push on into conditions which are worse than his abilities thinking he has a way out if it all goes pear shaped.
In the same way as a cautious night SEP pilot I would be more inclined to fly at night simply through the fact that the chute was there! Without any shadow of a doubt I would fly more at night with the chute rather than in a conventional aircraft!
That is not against the Cirrus or the chute just stating a fact which we all need to be aware of.
Accidents will increase because of the chute while lives will be saved because of the chute!

Pace

maxred

10th Oct 2012, 16:33

Was there not another Cirrus, accident, then discussion on Pprune, about the guy on the night flight to Jersey, who untimately went in, It was interesting because if I recollect, the discussion centered on the Cirrus IR automation/GPS coupling, with of course the chute, if even all of that went pear shaped?? This gave rise to a general discussion on pilots taking on flights/situations. where they were not competent, but had acres of automation. perceived safety gadgets?

This then led to an unsafe, wrong mindset, particularly in Cirrus aircraft. specifically because of the chute?

mad_jock

10th Oct 2012, 16:35

Dubin to be fair this pushing it into IMC with an autopilot has been around for years and has a fairly unhealthy death toll to prove its been happening as well.

The chute I don't think will have changed this much apart from the people are around afterwards to tell the tale.

dublinpilot

10th Oct 2012, 16:59

Yes I can see how the chute might affect the decision making for night flight and vfr on top. Both of those are about taking a relatively low risk but serious consequences activity, and for the first time giving you a way out.

It would probably have a serious affect on my decision making in those circumstances too.

Can't see it encouraging me to hand fly an IFR approach though.;)

Pace

10th Oct 2012, 17:31

Dublin Pilot

As stated by others we are not aware whether this pilot was IR rated or whether he was indeed a pilot fly VFR on top who expected to break cloud at 2000 feet and found infact that the cloud was at 700 feet.
In that situation he should have asked for help from ATC and been vectored to VMC conditions.
Instead he appeared to try to break cloud was unable to fly a runway heading on a go around and then lost control attempting a turn under ATC instructions!
Whatever he did not have the abilities to be where he was and by the looks of things did not get TAFS or ignored them.
Had he been flying a 172 would this have happened or worse??
The Cirrus does have a very sharp roll rate I timed it as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine so it would be easy to overcontrol in roll in cloud especially for an inexperienced instrument pilot.
He would have fared better engaging the autopilot and getting ATC help.

Pace

dublinpilot

10th Oct 2012, 18:19

Pace,

Your post reads to me as if you are trying to disagree with me (and I appreciate that tone is difficult to read on a forum).

But I haven't disputed anything you say in your last post, and indeed wouldn't because I agree with it entirely.

The only point I'm trying to make is that I think the role of the chute is over stated in this incident. I can't see a VFR pilot chosing to do an IFR approach based on having a chute available.

If someone tried to make the argument that having fancy automatiion would encourage them then I could see the point.

I accept fully that a chute can change risk assessment in other areas, but find it difficult to believe it would encourage a VFR only pilot to do an instrument approach.

maxred

10th Oct 2012, 18:48

I accept fully that a chute can change risk assessment in other areas, but find it difficult to believe it would encourage a VFR only pilot to do an instrument approach.

Well I may disagree with that. The issue appears to be that the chute mentality encourages individuals to give it a go. Whether it be flying at night, whether it be an IMC approach, there would appear to be an indication that some individuals see the chute as 'life saver' in any event. This regardless of their capabilities/ratings.

I think there is a study on this somewhere. I will try and find it.

maxred

10th Oct 2012, 18:54

Ruminations on BRS (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_BRSDiscussion_205999-1.html)

Found it.

007helicopter

10th Oct 2012, 19:21

I think there is a study on this somewhere. I will try and find it.

Maxred I would not say this was a study, more Paul Bertorelli's ruminations and personal opinions if the chute add's a false confidence.

Plenty of Pilots are killed for bad decision making in planes with or without BRS and the situation the author quotes is one of those.

The sad thing about the BRS in a Cirrus is that the vast majority of fatal's occur with a perfectly good chute intact, the pilot simply is not trained in its use, forgets to use it or leaves it to late.

What ever the guys error in this particular situation he did what he was trained to do, at a critical time and likely saved his life and that of his innocent passenger.

It sounds like Pilot Error.

007helicopter

10th Oct 2012, 19:48

007helicopter

10th Oct 2012, 19:54

I couldn't work out...was this guy actually IR rated or not?

Yes he was and on an IFR Flight plan.

From what I can see a Florida Based aircraft which might suggest not often flying in Actual IMC.

englishal

10th Oct 2012, 20:32

I have formed the theory that the Cirrus is no different to any other sort of aeroplane, but we hear more about the Cirrus because the pilot pulls the chute and survives to tell the tail.

In your typical spam can, the pilot either gets out of it by the skin of his teeth, lives, and no one hears about it (other than in the pub) or dies in spectacular fashion. I can remember many PA28's being involved in VMC into IMC type accidents but when these happen everyone goes "my condolences", "we shouldn't speculate", "Wait for the AAIB report" and 2 years on we have forgotten about it.

Maybe if this chap didn't have a chute he would have got away with it and no more would have been said, or he would have died. As he had the third option of the chute, which makes the chance of survival higher, then he pulls it and it makes the news.

thing

10th Oct 2012, 20:51

Hard to speculate on the psychology of the Cirrus 'chute not being a psychologist but I think Pace has probably hit the nail on the head with his 'more Cirrus accidents, more pilots walk away' comment.

So you have to say that if the Cirrus didn't have a 'chute then there would be less Cirrus accidents for pilots to walk away from.

It would be interesting to look back on say the last five years GA accidents in the UK and say which ones would have had a better outcome if there was a 'chute available.

Fuji Abound

10th Oct 2012, 20:54

Pace - you have identified the point I thought the discussion would have explored.

The Cirrus has a very effective autopilot. There was no suggestion it had malfunctioned.

I don't know how much time the pilot had in a Cirrus, or indeed any aircraft with an equivalent autopilot. However for anyone in this situation that has had a half acceptable level of training on the aircraft I would have expected the pilot to have engaged the autopilot in heading mode, followed immediately by a climb to recover VMC on autopilot. Set the bug, vs and hit the buttons and up she goes. Now I havent looked up the airport and have no idea whether there were any immediate terrain concerns given that I think he was at 1,000 feet. Maybe others might feel it was already too late to engage the autopilot, hence my comment earlier - at what point do you bail out.

Was it indicative of a lack of planning before commencing the approach. Should he have made a proper study of the sectional and know what terrain concerns there might be?

Food for thought.

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 00:50

Fuji

There is no doubt the chute saves lives as is well demonstrated in this event.

I am sold on the virtues of the chute so you do not need to convince me :E
I am not sold on some of the virtues of the pilots and in this case I am stunned the guy was IR rated.

Without any shadow of doubt the chute will encourage pilots into areas they cannot cope with!

As stated I do not like flying singles at night but I am sure I would be happy doing so in the Cirrus as the chute would give me an out!

On an ink black night you have no outs only the hope that what lies below is suitable to land on in the event of an engine failure.

I do not fly without outs as that is a game of Russian Roulette. The Cirrus would give me that out at night and hence I would fly at night! Would flying at night increase my chances of an accident? probably yes.
The same goes with weather or icing would the chute encourage me to press on looking for better weather ahead knowing that if ahead was a hell hole I had the option of an out? probably yes!

Would your non flying PAX be relieved if you briefed them on the use of the chute should you suffer a heart attack or stroke.
Of course they would! Why??? Because again it gives them an out if you blacked out at the controls and they were faced with death themselves.

So we are kidding ourselves if we think the chute will not make pilots more confident and will not encourage them to stray into conditions caution would normally keep them clear of!

That is something that we need to be aware of not something which rubbishes the chute.

This is the first production aircraft to come equipt with an in built chute system!
As it appears to be very efficient there are a whole new areas of operation where we need to consider the use of the chute like an engine failure.

Conventional aircraft the decision is clear you have to keep the aircraft flying to the ground and you have to be accurate! The chute brings in a new option a new "out"
With more options come more decisions! With more decisions the option to make the wrong decision! same as the extra engine in a twin.

The chute should not be used at the first sign of trouble but as a last resort after conventional solutions are considered too risky!

That is where new training should be in making pilots better equipt at making judgments quickly and acting on them and being aware of being lulled into a false sense of security that having a chute gives.

At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!

Pace

007helicopter

11th Oct 2012, 05:22

Was it indicative of a lack of planning before commencing the approach. Should he have made a proper study of the sectional and know what terrain concerns there might be?

Lack of planning who knows, terrain was not an issue at this airport.

I don't know how much time the pilot had in a Cirrus, or indeed any aircraft with an equivalent autopilot. However for anyone in this situation that has had a half acceptable level of training on the aircraft I would have expected the pilot to have engaged the autopilot in heading mode, followed immediately by a climb to recover VMC on autopilot. Set the bug, vs and hit the buttons and up she goes.

I am not certain but recall hearing around 500 hours, with regards the autopilot I totally agree that is one way to have the automation help but really only all the while the Pilot is thinking clearly and still in control of the aircraft.

If as appears in this case here he lost control, was disorientated at 1000ft in IMC, then I think the chute was the right option.

I understand we all argue he should never have lost control, should be able to easily cope with those conditions, should have planned better but something went wrong and he did the right thing regarding the chute.

I heard on the same day a Baron at the same airport lost control on approach and two people perished.

007helicopter

11th Oct 2012, 05:40

I am not sold on some of the virtues of the pilots and in this case I am stunned the guy was IR rated.

Pace I think the problem is being IR rated and IR current are worlds apart, for you and guys like MJ who fly week in week out and maybe do 100's of approaches each year it is easier for you to stay current and gain a big bag of experience and better skills.

For me and most others on this Private Flying section who are basic PPL's it is much tougher, I fly around 120 - 150 hours a year. Most of my approaches in IMC are due to a desire to practice and to try and stay current and improve my skills, I would say I only do 2 or 3 a year in actual IMC for the actual purposes of travel and my minimums are conservative from a planning point of view.

So I can easily see how this guy and plenty of others ended up in trouble, no idea how current or well trained or otherwise he was but this could happen (and does) to plenty of PPL's

007helicopter

11th Oct 2012, 05:48

The chute should not be used at the first sign of trouble but as a last resort after conventional solutions are considered too risky

I totally agree but also dependent on altitude and therefore time to find a solution, I do not think this guy had many seconds left to solve the problem he should never have got into in the first place.

The chute is very ineffective as an option on approach, if you mess it up on that phase there is very few situations where it is effective.

Approach, base to final turn's (read stalls) , incorrect landing speeds, and botched go around,s are a high proportion of Cirrus Fatal's and virtually all are Pilot Error and therefore either currency, incompetency or incorrect training and the Chute is a useless options in these 3 scenario's.

Contacttower

11th Oct 2012, 07:39

So I can easily see how this guy and plenty of others ended up in trouble, no idea how current or well trained or otherwise he was but this could happen (and does) to plenty of PPL's

Well in FAA land he should have done six approaches in the last six months, not a lot really but surely enough to ensure he wasn't going to lose control in relatively benign conditions by the sound of it. If he wasn't current he shouldn't have filed IFR.

One does here of incidents of IR rated pilots losing control in IMC, mostly in the US because the US has a much larger PPL/IR contingent. Very rare indeed and certainly not enough to offset the overall safety benefit of having more PPL/IRs but I have heard of cases...usually happens after an equipment failure or in turbulence but not always. Some will have had chutes, most not though and likely some will have paid the ultimate price for their loss of control. Thankfully this guy walked away.

I noted from the interview that the interviewer didn't actually get out of him why the crash actually happened...the guy made it sound like the aircraft started spontaneously doing things and that he was just a passenger. I was also amused that he said things like "we train for this all the time..." as if pulling the chute was some sort of complicated procedure that needed training for.

I'm very pro-chute in general but the tone of the interview made me think this guy was an idiot; if he made a mistake, fine, people do and I for one would never assert that oft heard assertion that "that would never happen to me", but if sounded like he was being very dishonest about what had actually happened. If he'd explained to the interviewer that actually he had lost control of his plane on a routine approach and then crashed near a school I doubt the interviewer would have been so praiseworthy...:ugh:

Contacttower

11th Oct 2012, 07:45

I heard on the same day a Baron at the same airport lost control on approach and two people perished.

Wow two accidents in one day? Are there details of the Baron crash?

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 08:09

Contact Tower

I tend to agree! The guy came over as a complete idiot! I think the only thing he was trained in was the use of the chute as there does not appear to be any displayed evidence of anything else running around in his brains.

"We are highly skilled This is what we train for all the time PULL THE CHUTE!"

I am surprised he did not claim to have a PULL THE CHUTE TYPE RATING :ugh:
FLY THE AIRCRAFT? do not need to do that when I am PULL THE CHUTE rated
:ok:

Oh well at least the chute saved him and I hope he does a PPL course and some IR training in future :{ At least we know why our insurance rates are so high!

Pace

englishal

11th Oct 2012, 09:36

If he'd explained to the interviewer that actually he had lost control of his plane on a routine approach and then crashed near a school I doubt the interviewer would have been so praiseworthy...
Never admit liability, especially in the USA !

Anyway it proves the chute works and is reliable.

soay

11th Oct 2012, 10:27

I think the issue about training to pull the chute is actually one of learning a mindset to use it. Having followed some of the debates on the COPA forum about this, it's apparent that the chute could have saved more lives, if only the pilots had chosen to pull it in time. One of the reasons for not doing so might be not wanting to be portrayed as lacking in pilot skills. It seems you can't win either way!

maxred

11th Oct 2012, 12:56

007, sorry I got pulled last night for kids bedtime. I was aware that the link was to PB, rumination, and did not manage to find the other piece I am sure I read. I will continue to look.

The issue is of course, the same as any other. Pilots, whether they have chute or not, straying out of depth, and into situations where the skill set does not match the predicament. Happens every day, hence not much movement on GA fatality stats.

Agree the chute provides an excellent, last chance saloon escape, however, the fundamental, and we keep coming back to it, is proper and adequate training and recency, for flying. Be it Instrument approaches and flying, speed management, general flying skills and ability, or the ability to pull the chute correctly.

The dark question is, - does perceived and added safety features, push individuals into ever more risk. I think yes, however, those indivuduals may have gone there anyway, safety feature or not.

dont overfil

11th Oct 2012, 14:32

Are Cirrus accidents different? Do they perhaps attract or breed a different kind of pilot?

A few years ago, (pre Cirrus) there was an article in an American magazine headed the doctor killer. I think it was pointing a finger at Beechcraft Baron accidents. It was a type of aircraft the writer considered attracted the well heeled but more importantly, ambitious type that expected to be able to pay his money and go fly. Is the Cirrus the new doctor killer?

Dare I suggest to remain instrument current as a private pilot requires another level of dedication to ones hobby. It cannot be done by dedicating two hours per week. One hour for the drive to the airfield and one hour in the air. I think one needs to be totally immersed in aviation.

One further thought. It can't be easy to become disoriented when you have a muckle 10" artificial horizon in front of you!

D.O.

maxred

11th Oct 2012, 14:46

DO, it was the V tail Bonanza, which got the tag of Doctor Killer. A great deal of myth, but basically, yes, well heeled individuals, jumping into a fast aeroplane, which required training and understanding, with a cruise pretty close to Vne. Put the nose down, and well, it broke up.

Stories of guys running into VMC, and stuffing the nose down, the usual stuff.......

Later models had a mod, strengthening the ruddervator area, however, this was a mod, and the original issue of high speed, slick airframe, still holds. Speed management skills, and a good understanding of its capabilities, a much required pre-requisite on this aeroplane.

No, I do not think Cirrus owners are 'different', i just think the mentality of 'what can go wrong with this thing', is perhaps an issue.

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 15:03

Dont Overfil

The Doctor Killer was the single engine V tailed Bonanza not the Baron.
The short time I have experienced the Cirrus The main trait I noticed was a very lively roll rate which I timed as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine.
hand flown by an inexperienced instrument pilot it would be easy to over control in roll which is what appears to have happened here!
I loved the Cirrus and its chute the main question in my mind being that having the chute will....

A) lull inexperienced or uncurrent pilots into just the situation where they need to use the chute ie at night or into bad weather.

B) Because of its effectiveness a question mark over overuse of the chute when a competent pilot should not need to use it.
I feel there should be more discussion on when the chute should be used ie for engine failure.

C) a clarification of where not to use the chute unless the aircraft is unflyable ie over built up areas.

I do see a comparison with a pilot wearing a chute. When would he vacate the aircraft? Would he vacate and abandon the aircraft if the aircraft engine stopped? NO
Would he vacate in bad weather NO and YES only when loss of control occurs
Would he abandon ship on engine failure at night?

The fact that the chute lowers the aircraft to the ground and not one occupant seems to change the emphasis of when and where the chute should be used and in what circumstances?

That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!

Pace

Fuji Abound

11th Oct 2012, 15:06

Most have suffered from the leans at some time. It is never comfortable.

It would seem the pilot had a perfectly good autopilot available. Use it. It will maintain the aircraft in level flight and it will maintain a 700 foot rate of climb with three button pushes and a twiddle of the heading bug.

I actually don't think this is much to do with the chute which is why I tried to steer the discussion away from this aspect before my thread got combined with this one.

I think far more relevant is how and when to resort to the autopilot and in what circumstances this might not be enough to save the day. In the circumstances as appear to be described and given that I felt extremely disorientated the first thing I would have done would have been to engage the autopilot, then set up a climb to establish terrain clearance, then done a reality check on my heading to ensure it was the "best" heading to take up, then possibly declare a Pan given that I wasnt fly the published missed nor had I informed AT my intentions. Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 15:14

or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?

If it fails (Yes autopilots do fail)

In bad weather and moderate to severe turbulence, windshear icing just to name a few.

All these gadgets should be an addition to piloting skills not a replacement for lack of piloting skills.

But yes in this specific situation I do not understand why the pilot did not use the autopilot!

Pace

maxred

11th Oct 2012, 17:06

That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!

I really do not understand what you mean by that. The manufacturer would never, and probably could not comment, on how an owner operates an in built safety device. The manufacturer in their manuals state do not exceed known limits, and yet many (pilots) do precisely that.

What do you mean by

Challenges conventional training.

The chute??? How is that precisely?

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 19:09

MaxRed

There is already as discussed earlier in the thread a manufacturer SOP for engine failure where use of the chute is mentioned if a conventional forced landing is not possible or advisable!
Others consider the chute should be used as a SOP for all engine failure!
That contradicts the manufacturer recommendations.
So we instantly have a conflict of opinion.
That is one example!
Conventional training is to force land hence use if the chute for engine failure is against conventional training!
Hope that makes things clearer ?
Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?

Pace

007helicopter

11th Oct 2012, 19:19

Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?

Fuji my take on reading between the lines on this incident is that he had lost control, did not consider or feel he had time to correct the situation and to be fair to him did what many others failed to do and pulled the chute in time. I would have considered the height he was at was critical for pulling the chute, if he messed up the autopilot and lost more altitude at that point he would no longer have the chute as a reliable option.

If he was good enough to quickly and deftly use the autopilot to regain control he likely would never have got in that situation in the first place.

The latest perspective Cirrus aircraft have one blue button on the autopilot, press it and the autopilot will immediately regain straight and level.

To achieve this with the STEC55 you would sync the heading bug, hit HDG and ALT and regain straight and level flight - under high stress I bet a few of us could mess up that simple flow.

Most chute pulls are going to attract a fair amount of criticism whatever the circumstances, often it may well be justified, often I think there for the grace of god go I.

maxred

11th Oct 2012, 19:23

At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!

Sorry Pace, I have reread the thread and cannot see any mention of SOP from Cirrus.

What I did see is the above, which appears to contradict what you have said in your last post.

Hence my confusion at your posts. I am away to look up the SOP from Cirrus.

Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?

No, I think you spelt it correctly. Well done.

007helicopter

11th Oct 2012, 19:39

The dark question is, - does perceived and added safety features, push individuals into ever more risk. I think yes, however, those indivuduals may have gone there anyway, safety feature or not.

Maybe it does, the example of flying at night, some would feel safer with a chute and therefore choose to fly at night which is riskier than day. Or flying over Mountains and Hostile terrain, I do this and would prefer to have a Chute, would I do it in an aircraft without one? not sure to be honest.

I personally do not think it increase the risk profile significantly of most Cirrus Pilots That I personally know, like wise having ABS breaks and Air Bags in my car does not make me take more risks in my car

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 20:34

MaxRed

My deepest and sincerest apologies :ok: it was posted up in the other long thread on Cirrus and was the as stated the Cirrus standpoint on the use of the chute regarding engine failure.
Basically glide to a suitable landing spot (ie conventional) If one is not available you may want to consider using the chute (unconventional) ;)
I am sure someone will post up the exact extract for you or when I get back later I will wade through the stream of posts and place it up here just for your good self to peruse :ok:
many Cirrus instructors and clubs are wanting the chute to be used as a SOP for engine failure which is not approved by Cirrus or conventional engine failure procedures. That maybe the right thing to do but in my book Cirrus should endorse it!

At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!

Just through intense and absolute interest how does my quote above contradict what i have said I stand by every word

Pace

Fuji Abound

11th Oct 2012, 21:01

Pace - now steady on, I posted last time what Cirrus have to say and this was discussed. While the wording has changed over the years effectively Cirrus simply say in the event of an engine failure it is for the pilot to assess whether or not a successful forced landing is an option and if it is not, use the chute. What else could they possibly say? Its obvious that you can neither force land an aircraft or land an aircraft under a chute with any absolute guarantee of a successful outcome. You would simply be opening yourself to the most ridiculous litigation were you to endorse the use of the chute in all circumstances.

Its really very little different from so called cross wind limits. the vast majority of manufacturers have shied awaiting from including a xwl in the POH because they know full well some pilots will fail at the demonstrated limit and some will be successful in much greater xw. What do you want them to do? If they say the aircraft is safe to land with a 25 knot cross wind component and the pilot gives it a go and rolls the aircraft is it the manufacturers fault? Just as with the chute some will enjoy a successful outcome, and some will not - the only difference is the success of the chute is in the hands of the Gods the success of the landing is in the pilots hands, albeit not to the same extent with an off airport landing.

You want certainty, when there cant be certainty, any more than there cant be certainty every time we get into the cockpit of a SEP that the engine will not quit on us or the driver of the coach wont have a heart attack on the motorway.

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 22:14

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.

Fuji

I think the above is the Cirrus recommendations? I note they say Cap Deployment MAYBE required
So basically Cirrus recommend a conventional forced landing and only if one is not possible or advisable to consider the use of the chute.
So Cirrus are cautious about even telling pilots to use the chute by adding the word MAYBE.

That is very different to what Pilots like 007 are contemplating which is to use the chute in ALL cases of engine failure as a SOP.
That idea is being heralded by instructors and various Cirrus clubs with no backup from the manufacturer.

It may or may not be the right thing to do using the chute in all engine failure situations but on whos advice?
That would indeed be a departure from conventional training and procedures for engine failure in a SEP? As such it should be approved by either the CAA or Cirrus not a concocted home made procedure by certain instructors off their own bat!

I am convinced with the chute and the aircraft but feel there should be more official guidance on its use.
Fuji I am sure you understand what I am getting at here?
Cirrus are happy to endorse a conventional forced landing but not one with the chute they leave that in your court!

Cirrus would be open to equal litigation telling you to force land as telling you to use the chute for engine failure

Pace

Fuji Abound

11th Oct 2012, 22:33

Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle. Only the pilot can weigh in the balance his currency and skill against the available sites against the risks of the chute. Surely you arent seeking to have cirrus alleviate the pilot of making that assessment nor could you unless you could demonstrate the chute would always produce a better outcome.

As i said earlier you are arguing for certainty where there can be done. You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give. Based on the evidence they may well in time be able to say on average the chute is always likely to give a better outcome but even that is not the certainty you are seeking. Pohs can be wrong (i had an incident which resulted in the poh being changed), pohs evolve, pohs have plenty of instances were you run the flow chart but ultimately can run out of options - the pilot is left to make the decision.

dublinpilot

11th Oct 2012, 22:42

Pace

In your last few posts you seem to be very caught up in conventual v unconventional forced landing.

Just remember conventual is only conventual because no parachute was widely available before the Cirrus came along!

If all air raft ad chutes available then conventual forced landings might be something else!

Pace

11th Oct 2012, 22:42

Fuji

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.

The above is a quote from 007Helicopter who states he will not consider a forced landing only the chute in any circumstances and this is an idea doing the rounds!

Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle.

007Helicopter and others maybe correct but this is way away from conventional teaching and procedures for engine failure and if it is to be used in all scenarios the idea and new training needs to be endorsed by the CAA or Cirrus

You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give.

Of course they can give guidance! If I get a problem in the Jet I fly i go instantly to the emergency handbook or the manual! If Cessna can do it with their Citation how come Cirrus cannot?

Pace

Fuji Abound

11th Oct 2012, 23:03

Pace 007 must answer for himself. Cirrus are not and cannot endorse a pull in every situation nor should a current pilot mindlessly pull if the engine fails downwind unless he feels unable to recover to the runway, given in almost any wind the chute can only result in an off airport landing.

I think copa are moving towards pilots pulling in the vast majority of cases but i dont see where this requires the caas involvement. Where is the evidence that current practise is unsafe - in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary.

I do however take your point that perhaps it could be argued the chute is as much a variance as glass so the pilot should require an endorsement that he has had chute training - my concern is where is the evidence of a need for this training. Would we end up with regulation for regulation sake yet again!

Pace with regard to guidance you know that is not what i said. I said cirrus cant give certainty. They already give guidance. What you seem not to like is that when you flow chart the problem the final box neither says pull the handle or land in a field. It says weigh the risks and make your own decision. It could not possibly say anything else.

AviatorTB

12th Oct 2012, 02:03

The Cirrus is a general aviation plane flown mostly by amateur pilots like myself. Each of us has his own true talent, his own currency and his own perceptions each day. We're not all going to fly like the best or the worst of us so there will not be a policy that fits all of us, all the regulatory bodies and all the liability lawyers. Why expect or seek it?

I know of only a couple situations in which I would cede my control to the chute, but I fly about 150 hours per year. Why should someone who flies more (or less) than I be stuck with only one policy? A pilot who flies a Cirrus 400 or more hours per year may be very confident in his ability to regain his SA at 1000 feet AGL with a sudden emergency (is this confidence or arrogance?). Someone with 50 will have a very different experience set from which to make his decision.

Pace

12th Oct 2012, 06:21

The Columbia is a better plane than the Cirrus but does not achieve anything like the sales figure of the Cirrus.
They would be well advised to follow suit and offer a built in chute system!
I am sure I read that fatalities in Cirrus occur where the chute is not pulled so it may well be the case that pilots are advised to use the chute in most circumstances and that 007 is right in his thinking?i do think the concept of a parachute lowering the complete aircraft and its occupants to the ground is a breakthrough safety advancement and evidence seems to suggest that the system is reliable.
It would be interesting to compare deaths in cirrus aircraft to conventional aircraft and analyse the nature of the accidents where a chute pull would have reduced those death rates as then there may emerge a clearer pull or no pull policy
It would also be interesting to know of the deployed aircraft how many have been repaired and brought back into service rather than being totalled?

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

12th Oct 2012, 07:35

It would also be interesting to know of the deployed aircraft how many have been repaired and brought back into service rather than being totalled?

My concern would be how well a repaired airframe would cope in the event of a second 'chute pull.

A and C

12th Oct 2012, 08:17

At the start of this thead Mad Jock says that the airframe is a write off, I totaly disagree, there is nothing on that video that would indicate that the aircraft could not be repaired.

The post above asks about the ability of composite repairs to withstand the stress of a parachute deployment, that is simple to answer, a properly carried out composite repair will react in exactly the same way as a new aircraft.

Pace
I know of one aircraft this side of the pond that had a chute deployment....I was flying it a few weeks back!

Pace

12th Oct 2012, 08:26

A C

That is encouraging to hear as if deployment does become recommended for use on situations where the aircraft is still flyable ie engine failure, fuel starvation etc rather than a conventional forced landing then the increased incidents of chute deployments will not have such an impact on future insurance! Costs which total write offs would!

Pace

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 19:29

That is very different to what Pilots like 007 are contemplating which is to use the chute in ALL cases of engine failure as a SOP.
That idea is being heralded by instructors and various Cirrus clubs with no backup from the manufacturer.

It may or may not be the right thing to do using the chute in all engine failure situations but on whos advice?

Ok, yes I do have pretty much as Pace describes a SOP that means in the event of all off airport landings onto an unknown surface I have chosen to use the Chute, because in my personal opinion I have a better chance of living to tell the tale.

When 4 + years ago I did my transition from then a Turbo Arrow to the Cirrus I was very much a fly it to the ground sort of guy and assumed the chute was the last resort in the event of mid air, engine failure in solid IMC or at night etc and this pretty much stayed with me for several years, so I fully understand the arguments against the chute and the preference for a fly it to the scene of the accident type approach.

The last couple of years and after 400+ Cirrus hours I have now changed my mind completely, and I fully admit being influenced by attending 3 x CPPP's (Cirrus specific training weekends organised by COPA) also by learning a lot from other Cirrus and COPA members and flying with some of the top (IMHO) Cirrus Instructors, and have now formed my own choice that suits me as an amateur pilot of average ability.

I am also very happy to publicly debate this as I believe the chute is largely misunderstood as a gimmick or an aid for incompetent bafoons who can not be bothered to get proper training and charge of into IMC knowing if it goes wrong, never mind , just pull the Chute. A good debate may even motivate some existing Cirrus (or other BRS equipped aircraft) to reconsider their own SOP.

At the start of this thead Mad Jock says that the airframe is a write off, I totaly disagree, there is nothing on that video that would indicate that the aircraft could not be repaired.

Agreed, I know at least 6 of the total 37 Cirrus Caps pulls that are flying again today with very happy new owners, there may be more.

I am told the costs for the repairs have varied from $80K - $160K USD which insurers are very happy about compared to massive litigation costs which has happened in quite a few Cirrus fatal's.

Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle

Fuji I recall but may be wrong from a previous thread you made the very valid point that at a 1000ft in unknown territory who can really be certain on the condition of a landing site, whats looks great at 1000ft may be horrible at 100ft and then it is to late, hazards such as ditches, unseen wires, crops, ploughed fields, rocks, gradient, wet boggy ground (especially this year) coming up short, over shooting etc may all be factors that end up killing an average type of guy.

When I drive around the UK there is not that many spots I would like to land my Cirrus at 60+ knots on its tiny wheels and relative high inertia.

Maybe in complete random situations it would work for me in good weather maybe 8 or 9 out of 10 times, I just prefer my odds with the chute and have a pre determined plan before I even take off.

goldeneaglepilot

12th Oct 2012, 19:51

Fuji Abound

12th Oct 2012, 19:54

goldeneaglepilot

12th Oct 2012, 19:57

FA - Good points, even with small wheels and 60kts, Points 1 to 5 shout out for an attempt at an off airfield landing

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 20:06

Having had some experience of the cost and complexity of composite repairs I am amazed that the repair cost is so low. The AC in the video has significant wing root damage from the wheel spat, the U/C is delaminated and that illustrates the stresses involved. The engine will require a shock load strip down and new prop, and thats only what is visible in the video.

Just what I was told by someone who I believe knows the facts, bear in mind appx 30 may not have been economically repairable.

With the chute delpoyed what is the verical descent rate? 17knots is the speed, not sure exactly in ft/min but can check

I have heard some stories of back injuries due to the deceleration

from the 37 I only recall one serious back injury (but may be wrong) he I believe cracked a vertebrae on a water landing, i think the Hudson North of NYC, however he was still able to swim to the shore unaided and 6 months later was fully recovered and able to snow board.

The last one on water was Dick Mcglaughin in the Bahams after engine failure, no back problems and a great blog here if you have time 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)

goldeneaglepilot

12th Oct 2012, 20:19

28.69ft per second, that is a pretty heavy deceleration,

Fuji Abound

12th Oct 2012, 20:20

007

Fuji I recall but may be wrong from a previous thread you made the very valid point that at a 1000ft in unknown territory who can really be certain on the condition of a landing site, whats looks great at 1000ft may be horrible at 100ft and then it is to late, hazards such as ditches, unseen wires, crops, ploughed fields, rocks, gradient, wet boggy ground (especially this year) coming up short, over shooting etc may all be factors that end up killing an average type of guy.

I did say that. I also refer you to my post a couple up with regards your SOP.

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 20:28

007helicopter - so you might like to give us an indication of when you would not pull the cute?

Here are some possible examples:

1. Downwind in the circuit. Obviously a chute pull will result in an off airport landing (assuming the wind is not at right angles to the down wind leg in the direction of the field). Lets assume the circuit is not sufficiently wide that you wouldn't expect to make the runway.

Reasonable medium or big Airport read Lydd / or Manston, yes I would in most circumstances expect and be able to land on the runway.

My home airport Rochester which I know very well and the approaches are awful in the event of coming up short I would in fact pull the chute and hope to come here to pick up the criticism (and hopefully eat dinner at home that night)

2. In the climb out from L2K - you will probably be at 1,000 feet or so over the beach or just beyond. The tide is out and the beach presents left and right.

Good one and I have considered this one specifically several times this year, the beech if empty would be very tempting but I have in fact decided I would likely still pull the chute but this is one of the tougher decision's, again maximum criticism expected from pprune.

South of the downs 4,000 feet - plenty of very large grass fields to choose from - no good reason to think any of the fields present hazards. I would pull the Chute

Over the Alps - some valley landing sites available, or "fly" the aircraft to a chute pull with the expectation of landing in a valley, or just pull the chute and end up where it takes you.

I would aim to manoeuvre to what I considered the best area with prevailing winds and pull the chute.

5. Over a built up area interspersed with some larger areas of parkland at 2,500 feet.

In fact assuming for some reason I could not glide clear, which happens I would pull the chute because a) more likely I would survive and b) less impact and damage to whatever I hit on the ground at 17kt vertical than 60+ knot horizontal. Or if possible try and arrive with the chute over the parkland which I accept pretty tricky. I know at least 2 CAPS pull over built up areas and I accept this is a highly hypothetical scenario but this is the best answer I can give from the arm chair.

6. Over the Scottish highlands with very mixed terrain and no obviously clean landing sites.

Pull the chute, why wouldn't you?

7. In the winter over lots of muddy and evidently ploughed fields or fields with winter standing crops.

Pull the chute

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 20:32

28.69ft per second, that is a pretty heavy deceleration,

May well be but so far has worked with 100% success rate when used within limitations - that is good enough for me.

However I do accept 37 is a small number and one fatality will skew the results.

goldeneaglepilot

12th Oct 2012, 20:48

Refresh my memory 007 - exactly why was the chute fitted to enable certification?

To help - a clue: SPINNING

Not as a get out of trouble at all stages of flight card...

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 21:02

Refresh my memory 007 - exactly why was the chute fitted to enable certification?

To help - a clue: SPINNING

Not as a get out of trouble at all stages of flight card...

True, one factor was it did reduce certification costs because it meant full spin testing was not required, fair point.

That does not mean the Cirrus does not spin and recover from spinning pretty much like most other GA aircraft, but I accept it did reduce the costs and the time involved in getting certified.

goldeneaglepilot

12th Oct 2012, 21:18

That does not mean the Cirrus does not spin and recover from spinning pretty much like most other GA aircraft

That's an interesting observation. Please tell us more about your experiences spinning aircraft and how you have arrived at that conclusion?

Have you ever spun the SR22 or variants?

If the aircraft exhibited normal spin charecteristics why not get it fully certified without the extra cost and payload of a ballistic chute?

Its interesting to see what others have wrote about the SR22 and spins:

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. Remember that spin testing in certification is done with a special tail parachute for breaking the spin that can then be cut away inflight. NASA puts this best:
"Because unrecoverable spins may be encountered during initial aircraft stall/spin flight tests, spin test aircraft are commonly equipped with emergency spin-recovery parachute systems, which can be deployed to terminate the spinning motion and reduce the aircraft angle of attack to below stall conditions. The parachute is then jettisoned by the pilot and conventional flight resumed."
— http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)

Based on my own experiences and what others have written I doubt you have ever entered a spin in the SR22...

Indeed the NTSB attributes several fatalities to stall/spin scenarios.

To quote a website in 2009:

As with most facts, they can be skewed in many different ways to represent many different views. This much is known. According to the National Transportation Safety Board database, (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=5%2F6%2F2009&p3=&p4=&p5=like+%27FATAL%28%25%27&p6=&p7=N&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev%5Fdate&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=Cirrus) there have been 46 fatal Cirrus accidents

Read more: Cirrus Fatalities Have Critics Questioning Safety (http://news.legalexaminer.com/cirrus-fatalities-have-critics-questioning-safety.aspx?googleid=262482#ixzz297dSO6By)

Just to remove any doubt, I am not knocking the Cirrus, its a fantastic aircraft but it does require care in its handling, it has nasty parts of its flight envelope that you do not want to enter and the chute does not exempt the pilot from stupidity....

Fuji Abound

12th Oct 2012, 21:45

I have never spun a Cirrus.

However I am not sure your appraisal is entirely complete.

i. Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations.
So while limited, the Cirrus has been spun, and in every one of these cases the test pilot recovered within one turn. The conclusion was that while recovery cannot be assured in all circumstances the spin characteristics are not exceptional BUT equally the recovery technique is not typical of types used for spin training.

Personally given the spin training undertaken by most pilots I doubt many would do that good a job of recovering any aircraft from a fully developed spin. When I started flying aerobatics I will happily admit that I had very little idea what the h*** was going on and found the whole experience quite disconcerting.

Without training (and I don't mean having a couple of spins demonstrated to you in the distance past of your PPL training) I think spins should be avoided at all cost. With proper training I suspect most pilots would do no worse and no better a job of recovering a Cirrus. (but I have no assured basis for making that assertion other than reading Cirrus's report referred to above).

Would I intentionally spin a Cirrus - hell no, its not certified for spinning, would I attempt to recover from a spin, yes if I had sufficient height I would, but I have to admit I cant recall whether chute deployment is thought to be in any way possibly compromised from a fully developed flat spin. I must check.

007helicopter

12th Oct 2012, 22:54

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. :

You have quoted some one here as if it is fact, Just wondered who because it is totally inaccurate?

No I have never spun a Cirrus or any other aircraft, the Cirrus was extensively spin tested to meet european standards and is it it one of the misquoted old wife's tales that it will not recover from a spin.

Big Pistons Forever

13th Oct 2012, 02:14

My 2 cents

-I have little respect for those who imply that "real" pilots don't pull the chute and instead should do some hero piloting shy*te to safely land the plane. I find it troubling that these people seem to think that death for not only the pilot, but also his/her unfortunate passengers, is an acceptable result for a pilot making a some bad decisions and/or demonstrating a skill deficit. There absolutely have been some instances where the chute saved the pilot from themselves, but the bottom line is in virtually every case the pilot and the passengers walked away. GA has enough fatal accidents already and the Cirrus parachute system has demonstrably and conclusively saved lives.

-The problem with the Cirrus is that after people spend a half a million plus dollars on their airplane they want to use it to get from A to B all the time, not just the good weather days. While Cirrus and COPA have worked hard to improve the training of Cirrus pilots the fact remains the PPL course and the FAA PPL IR doesn't do a very good job of preparing one for real world A to B flying in a technologically complex aircraft. Effectively using the fitted advanced Avionics in this aircraft also requires strong system knowledge and a very disciplined SOP driven methodology. Flight training in general is still stuck in the 1950's and needs to get with the program.

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 06:17

007 - Sadly I think there are hints within your posts of a lack of understanding of the issues with respect to the Cirrus. Without doubt its a great aeroplane, its fast, flies great and certainly does the job incredibly well. However it does require a different approach to its operation than say a typical Arrow or Rockwell Commander. This is due to its slippery nature, the control feedback and its integrated systems.

You seem to be under the impression that its spin charecteristics are typical of GA aircraft and are fully certified within EASA. They are not, a quick study of the type approval draws attention to some special conditions with regards spinning.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircraft/EASA-TCDS-A.007_(IM)_SR_20--SR_22-13-30012012.pdf

You asked about my quote, put the text of my quote into Goggle and you will find the full article.

What BPA said is a very good summary of the BRS system and its advantadges, however one does have to ask if it lulls some pilots into taking to the air in conditions that they would not have considered in an aircraft not equipped with the BRS.

With respect to the spin, its a recognised problem that if you slow down, turn sharply and push the Cirrus it will bite you, people have died because of exactly that. It's an aircraft that inspires confidence due to having the BRS fitted, however does it inspire too much confidence that it will get you out of every adverse situation?

It was interesting reading the comments of 007 regarding the listed failiure situations and in which ones he would have pulled the handle.

007helicopter

13th Oct 2012, 06:38

007 - Sadly I think there are hints within your posts of a lack of understanding of the issues with respect to the Cirrus. Without doubt its a great aeroplane, its fast, flies great and certainly does the job incredibly well. However it does require a different approach to its operation than say a typical Arrow or Rockwell Commander. This is due to its slippery nature, the control feedback and its integrated systems.

GEP, what I took exception to was your inaccurate copy and paste of a statement that suggested the Cirrus was virtually impossible to recover from a spin, this I think was misleading and inaccurate and may have shown a certain lack of understanding on your own side.

I am not knowledgeable or experienced on spinning and should I or anyone else find themselves in a spin in a Cirrus then their piloting skills have already failed them and they are likely to be incompetent to recover, in this case I would recommend the chute as the best option.

Regarding my lack of understanding of issues with the Cirrus you are entitled to be sad about that, I am just a average PPL and Cirrus owner who takes a reasonable interest and care in trying to understand why people kill themselves in this and other aircraft and find strategies that work for me that reduce this risk.

With respect to the spin, its a recognised problem that if you slow down, turn sharply and push the Cirrus it will bite you, people have died because of exactly that. It's an aircraft that inspires confidence due to having the BRS fitted, however does it inspire too much confidence that it will get you out of every adverse situation?

Yes I could not agree more, as it will in many other aircraft types, the higher the performance generally the less forgiving to incorrect Pilot inputs. This in my observations is a factor in some Cirrus fatal's, typically in base to final turn at around 1000ft agl, the pilot has the wrong speeds, wrong inputs, stalls, spins and dies, the chute in this approach phase of flight is worthless.

Rory Dixon

13th Oct 2012, 06:46

GEP, you stated the following:
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots.
Yet, in the EASA certification a SR20 was spun 60 times, each time was recovered, not using a specific spin recovery device, but just control inputs.
Can you elucidate on this discrepancy?

Rory Dixon

13th Oct 2012, 06:50

GEP, another one:
With respect to the spin, its a recognised problem that if you slow down, turn sharply and push the Cirrus it will bite you, people have died because of exactly that.
Sure, but this is also true for many other planes. Why do you limit that to the Cirrus? What is it what you really want to say?

Rory Dixon

13th Oct 2012, 07:00

I think, BPF has hit the nail with his first statement. The whole discussion somehow reminds me of the (by now fortunately pretty much terminated) discussion about the use of GPS. There are the old guys who truly believe, that everything is fine the way they do it. And there are other ones who can imagine the possibilities and start thinking out of the box. Because sometimes new technology needs other approaches than the existing stuff. There is a lot of data available proving 007s SOPs. The fact, that (obviously) many people have not really done their homework, have not searched for the available knowledge, and have not started to inform themselves, does not erase this knowledge. If you are really interested, get informed!

The second point from BPF is, I believe, also quite true, but is wrong in being limited to the Cirrus. It holds true for other airplane with comparable use, therefore not a Cirrus specific problem, but a problem of todays training environment (what BPF has also stated).

Fuji Abound

13th Oct 2012, 07:14

I will add that i have flown quite a range of types and so i feel able to make some comparison. I have also intentionally stalled the cirrus on more than a few occasions. I have found no evidence that its characteristics are exceptional, it provides more than enough indication of an imminent stall, infact more than most because its low speed handling really lacks feedback, it will drop a wing but not violently or unexpectedly and it will recover predictably from a stall.

I also really dont think the cirrus should be portrayed as the rocket ship it isnt. Everything is relative. Compared with a 152 it will seem amazing, sophisticated and complex. On the other hand it will seem none of these for anyone with some time in faster singles. For a twin pilot it will appear very basic. In many ways it is simple. Two levers, and one set at that. Fixed u/c. Other than the avionics its very simple. Even the avionics are over done. Yes for ifr flight they need a thorough understanding and this takes time. For vfr flight a few hours is really more than enough for a pilot with a reasonable background.

If a cirrus catches you out it does so because like any good touring aircraft, and there are many, it encourages you to go places, it encourages you to fly reasonably quickly, and therefore it equally can result in the pilot falling behind the aircraft or events going on outside. No different than many faster touring aircraft. When things go wrong they go wrong for all the usual reasons.

That said for the lower time pilot there is plenty there to cause you problems and some characteristics that will be new and different. It will bite. However i am just not sure it will bite any more or less than a lot of other high performance singles.

The chute is different. I think it will take time to develop a full understanding of its best use and i think the way in which pilots are trained with regards the chute has and still is evolving. As i have often said in the interesting discussion i have had with pace the chute gives the pilot an option and an option in potentially a life threatening situation. In some ways in these situations options arent good. Far better to follow the flow diagram and the last box tell us now pull the handle. I dont see it will ever be like that because i dont think the chute can ever provide absolute certainty. It will also mean there will always be discussion about if you had chosen the other option the result would have been different / better and of course we will never know. Pilots are different. There will be those who fly lots of different types, regularly practise pfls, and are confident in their ability to select and land in a good field. There will be those that have only ever flown a cirrus and havent done a pfl in years. Their assessment will inevitably be very different of when to use the chute.

Life is full of uncertainties and the chute just gives the pilot another to wrestle with. However far better the uncertainty because the evidence suggests it is a rather nice option to have. Moreover if you use it as much as some might try, try as they might it will be impossible to prove you selected the wrong option!

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 08:11

Rory Dixon; My quotes were from Philip Greenspun - he is a very well respected pilot and Cirrus owner.

Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20)

I searched very hard to try to find any official report of the claimed 60 spins during flight testing for EASA certification, please explain why the type certificate shows the CRI B2 comments with reference to spinning.

I think that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane, but cant help but wonder if some have now gained confidence into entering flight conditions that they would not have entered had the CAPS system not been in place.

Equally I note that Cirrus advocates use of the CAPS system as a last resort, yet it would seem some regard it as a first line SOP.

Without doubt the CAPS system has saved lives, but had it not been there then how many times would the pilot have ventured into the flight conditions that required its use. The deployment over Oxfordshire would seem to be one of those times.

Air Accidents Investigation: Cirrus SR20, N470RD (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/july_2011/cirrus_sr20__n470rd.cfm)

Fuji Abound

13th Oct 2012, 08:51

Gep

I have read his report. Its an opinion and as with any opinion there are parts with which i agree and others with which i dont. However i am very surprised with regards to his comments about the feedback from the sidestick particularly during slow flight. I dont recognise his description.

As to spinning reading the easa report the point is made that pushing the stick rapidly forward when the aircraft spins nose down is not naturally intuitive. The report also cites the lack of spin training. I find it very difficult to conclude reading the report how on earth some jump to the conclusion once a spin is entered it is virtually impossible to recover. The evidence suggests very differently, while recognising that such is spin training these days and because of the particular spin characteristics of the cirrus most pilots will not make a good job of recovering.

I wonder how many pilots would recover an aerobat or a slingsby from a spin? A fa200 spins very nicely but nose down. I found it a bit disconcerting and i have often wondered if a cirrus presents in the same way. I am not intending to find out. ;)

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 09:04

Hi Fuji - Do you have a link to the EASA spinning report for the Cirrus? I could not find one,

The spin recovery you describe is not that different from the one in the POH for the Terrohawk.

As an example of spins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvbS-oHi9ro

With reference to the Aerobat or Slingsby, both recover very easily, the Slingsby recovers happily from both upright or inverted spins - providing you apply the correct controls and procedure.

I have taught many people spins and recovery, most people soon get to grips with the techniques (or are sick!!)

mad_jock

13th Oct 2012, 10:01

who fly week in week out and maybe do 100's of approaches each year it is easier for you to stay current and gain a big bag of experience and better skills.

Thats fair enough comment usually I am about 20-25 a week. Actually handling half that although recently I have had a big lump of training to do so the baby FO's get more than half the approaches. Which is more work than if I just flew them myself.

And currently sitting at just over 600 approaches with 3 months to run to the end of my FTL year. Out of that quarter of them will be visual approaches though. And down to mins and rvr limits maybe 50 a year.

BTW the biggest problem with inexperenced instrument pilots is that they fly the plane way to much. Set the machine up and let it do the flying. Don't annoy it with huge control inputs and multiple power changes.

A debrief line which has been used to me in the past and I will admit I have used as well.

"well we arrived despite your best efforts to prevent us"

And I am far from perfect thursday day 6 sector 8 of a 13 hour duty day starting at 5am with a split, pitch black and snowing with hills all about I boxed that NPA loc approach to the limits, my airspeed was up and down like fiddlers elbow and then procceded to rape the runway.

The FO just said on the taxi back in with me cursing under my breath at my self.

"what you needed to do with that one was set your power and attitude and use smaller control inputs"

"so why didn't you take it off me then?"

"sod that, it was horrible" was the reply.

Just had to agree and laugh and go and do the walk of shame and apologise to the pax.

Human performance factors also make a huge difference to your performance on the day. Day one of a roster even with the split duty and I would have looked as if I knew what I was doing instead of the utter garbage that I did.

(Just to note we can work a max of 7 days then 3 days off but more normally it max 6 days then 2 days off so if you see folk post day x its the number of days they are into a block of flying after a day off)

007helicopter

13th Oct 2012, 11:42

Link to Cirrus EASA Spinning report, strangely found on Peters web site here

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

Concludes all 60 spin's tested recovered within one turn within a range of 1200-1800ft

Also concludes that Cirrus Cirrus is making AFM changes to clarify loss of control response and CAPS deployment.

007helicopter

13th Oct 2012, 12:00

Rory Dixon; My quotes were from Philip Greenspun - he is a very well respected pilot and Cirrus owner.

GEP Maybe he is but just goes to prove you should not believe everything you find in Google.

Without doubt the CAPS system has saved lives, but had it not been there then how many times would the pilot have ventured into the flight conditions that required its use. The deployment over Oxfordshire would seem to be one of those times.

Are the accident reports for all types not littered with fatal's of VFR into IMC, I have seen no evidence this is higher than average in the Cirrus than other similar non BRS equipped type's.

Badly prepared pilots continue to launch into conditions which exceed there ability and die, always have done and always will.

MungoP

13th Oct 2012, 12:11

This harks back to a similar debate during WW1 when it was argued that giving pilots parachutes might cause them to abandon their machines prematurely. The fact remains that two people are walking around today who otherwise would be being mourned by their loved ones and that has to be the prevailing view...
Somehow we need to get across to low time pilots that the difference between operating in IMC during training exercises and doing it for real is much greater than you think.

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 12:29

An interesting report.

In summary: It talks of the spin charecteristics not being fully tested as required for JAA certification WITHOUT the CAPS system being fitted.

I do note the one comment in the report:

It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs.

I also note the remedy suggested by Cirrus:

Proposed Procedure. Cirrus has reached strong conclusion that any spin recovery guidance in the AFM distracts pilot from immediately activating CAPS system when the aircraft has departed controlled flight. Cirrus is removing existing references to spin recovery in its current AFM. The clear AFM procedure will be to activate CAPS system in the event that control is lost. The new proposed procedure can be found in Appendix 4.

Rory Dixon

13th Oct 2012, 12:31

GEP, 007 and Fuji have answered, I don't need to repeat that.
I think that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane, but cant help but wonder if some have now gained confidence into entering flight conditions that they would not have entered had the CAPS system not been in place.007 has also replied to that. It is a fact that the rate of fatal accidents in Cirrus isn't much different than in other high performance airplanes. So obviously not. Or do you have any other proof of your guess?

What the Cirrus has NOT delivered (on first sight) is to be more safe than other planes, despite the safety features it has. Well, this is something interesting, but doesn't wonder. People like you and many others, including the normal CFIs, believe a Cirrus should be handled like any other plane. Don't use the safety features, only if its to late, that is the mantra. I would expect no change in the safety of an airplane with this approach.

The interesting thing is, there is evidence clearly showing that a different approach to flying this airplane makes it safer. This approach is the one 007 has extensively elucidated on. The group of pilots accepting this approach has a rate of fatel accidents which is much lower (I think it was in the range of factor 3, if I recall right) than of the Cirrus pilots flying the old way.

So new technology sometime necessitates new thinking.

englishal

13th Oct 2012, 14:55

It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs.
Isn't this the same for all aeroplanes? If you spin a C150 and you use "incorrect control inputs", I doubt it would recover - example if you held the rudder all the way in and held the yoke all the way back as your "spin recovery" then I doubt very much the aeroplane would recover.

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 15:00

My take on the statement is that incorrect control input may place the aircraft beyond recovery through further use of the controls.

On another note, 1200' to recover from a spin (from input of anti spin control) is a lot to drop. By way of an example, a Terrohawk in a fully developed spin could be recovered in 600', a Pitts S2A in 500'.

A and C

13th Oct 2012, 18:14

Your statement about the damage to the wing roots is not backed up by the picture, it depends what the wheel spat hit and how hard.

Splicing a GRP spar boom is common practice in GRP repair so even damage that would write off a metal aircraft is unlikely to write off a GRP aircraft.

As I said in a post above I had seen nothing on the Utube clip that made me think that the aircraft could not be fixed, I am not saying that it is not beyond economic repair but that I can't see a reason to write the aircraft off on the basis of pictures.

goldeneaglepilot

13th Oct 2012, 19:54

A&C, My comment was directed about the hole in the wing skin. We looked at buying a SR22 at one point and what impressed me was the degree of structural strength in the design, not from just the spar but from the clever use of tapered layup techniques in the skin itself. From my own companies experience on other such damage (damage puncturing the skin in or near the root area of the wing, certainly in the first third of the wing) is often uneconomical to repair and a new panel is often the cheapesrt option.

You are right, its a question of economics for the insurance company.

A and C

13th Oct 2012, 20:45

Nothing about the wing skin looks bad enough to give me any reason that it can't be fixed, it would be the internal damage that I would want to see.

The other thing I would like to take a look at would be the pilots seat support structure, the area below the seat is off limits for the instalation of any equipment presumably because the seat is designed to progressively collapse into this area, the deformation of that area would indicate to me a very hard impact that I would not see the airframe recovering without uneconomic amounts of work.

Big Pistons Forever

14th Oct 2012, 01:28

It is a fact that the rate of fatal accidents in Cirrus isn't much different than in other high performance airplanes.

It is not a "fact" that the accident rate isn't "much different" than other high performance singles. The true measure of accident rates has to measure both risk and exposure.

For example if you looked at the the number of accidents versus the fleet size of Cessna 182's in Alaska you would find it is 5 times higher then the total accident rate per 100,000 hrs for similar aircraft in the Continental US. The obvious reason is the extremely demanding flying conditions in Alaska compared to the lower 48.

Similarly if you have a higher proportion of low time pilots combined with a higher proportion of hours flown in IFR weather , which is the case for the Cirrus, then you are comparing apples and oranges if you are measuring it against other aircraft. The only "fact" in the question of Cirrus accidents is that there has been 38 accidents involving a chute pull where everyone survived that would otherwise have resulted in certain death for most/all of the aircraft occupants.

There been numerous other accidents where the chute was not used and the outcome was tragic.

Obviously continued efforts should be made to reduce the number of accidents that resulted from poor piloting, but for me the bottom line is simple.

If the engine fails and a cause check will not get it going again, pull the chute.

If you have lost control of the aircraft, pull the chute.

Pace

14th Oct 2012, 08:30

The chute is a major first for a standard production aircraft! A chute which will lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground.
The possibilities are huge and I for one would love to see the chute as standard fit in other SEP aircraft.
For me there are two issues! Without doubt the security of having a chute will lure pilots into conditions they would not normally venture into.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying cross country at night in a single piston.
Flying a Cirrus would encourage me to fly at night etc.

The second issue is when to use it? I feel there could be a complete course on that fact alone.
Everyone here has presumed zero wind conditions and a vertical descent.
Many times in the past I have flown singles in 30 to 50 kt winds.
Pulling the chute in those situations will not only mean a high descent rate but the possibility of slamming hard into an object in the horizontal mode.
We have all seen the effects of a 30 mph (25kt) car crash.
Yet for the flying aircraft wind is the saviour as into wind landings reduce the ground speed to sometimes very low speeds.

So I feel reading the comments here that there is a mass of confusion and lack of direction on when and when not to pull the chute and no or little manuafacture direction or even authority direction on the matter.
The whole approach to the chute comes over as wishy washy and amateurish rather than a properly researched and directed SOP

It seems to be left to individual opinion which is not good enough on such a major development which goes away from traditional training and procedures.

Pace

A and C

14th Oct 2012, 09:19

I have to agree with Pace, about the surface wind being a major factor to take into account when deciding if a parachute deployment is the best option.

A forced landing into a 30kt head wind would very quickly result in the ground speed being very low after touchdown, being dragged along by the chute at 30kt untill the aircraft snags in something big enough to stop it sounds a little risky to me!

Some on this forum would tell you the SR20/22 is a bit of a rocket ship, having operated out of an airfield with a TORA of 500m I can tell you that it is just another SEP in performance terms.

mad_jock

14th Oct 2012, 09:25

But you see personally for me I wouldn't want to be carting the weight of the chute around in a SEP.

For me the risk it migates isn't worth the cost.

If I was wanting flying in WX or terrain which required me to say the risk is too high in a single I would use a twin or get the train or more likely go to the pub.

englishal

14th Oct 2012, 09:32

Regarding stats...If you search the AAIB from 1st jan until now, you will see than in the UK alone there have been 7 accidents involving Cessna SEPs. Does this mean that the Cessna is a more dangerous single?

There have been 10 involving Piper SEPs and so by this deduction I can safely assume that a Piper SEP is more dangerous than a Cessna SEP ? By contrast there have been no Cirrus accidents at all!

Just showing how statistics and peoples' perception of them can be as meaningless as you want them to be which is why I don't believe the hype about the Cirrus. To have meaningful stats you'd have to break it down to "per flight hour" and by "type of flight".

maxred

14th Oct 2012, 09:49

As stated I would not be comfortable flying cross country at night in a single piston.

Many times in the past I have flown singles in 30 to 50 kt winds.

PACE - I stated earlier that your posts confuse me. You asked me to elaborate. I could have lifted many posts from the Irish Sea crossing thread, regarding you not wanting to fly single engine pistons. Ever!!!!

You are now stating that Cirrus have a wishy washy approach to chute installation, and no SOP to deal with the situation.:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

You now state that your view is that the chute/safety devices will lure pilots into a false sense of security heaven. This differs from some of your original comments.

I have not flown a Cirrus, therefore am unqualified to comment type specific. I have however, flown many fast complex twins and singles. Over sea, over mountains, over flat land. If I had a chute, a new glass cockpit, linked to autopilot, with all the latest technology, I would go and get trained fully on the systems and their use. You would also, as would the majority. However, many would not, many would think, this lot (new gizmos) will get me out of anything. The accident stats look to confirm this. This is the basis of the discussion. The American Bonanza Society recognised this with the Baron and Bonanza models, and set up the BPPP. This is a training proficiency programme, which if completed can give insurance discounts, and all in all should make for a better flying experience, with more experienced and knowledgeable pilots on type.

Perhaps Cirrus, in line with Cirrus owners should consider this. They may already have such a programme. The stats however are worrisome on Cirrus incidents, linked to IFR flight, and this can only be attributed to a training deficiency, either instruments, false sense of security, lack of systems knowledge, but it is a fundamental lack of training on type.

Rory Dixon

14th Oct 2012, 09:54

BPF, you are spot on. I guess, I have not written may point in the best possible manner. What I wanted to say is, that if you compare the Cirrus to other airplanes used in an identical manner, there is no reason (from the statistics) to believe, that the Cirrus is worse with regard to safety.
You are absolutely right: to compare accident statistics you have to riskadjust them, otherwise they are meningless.

Rory Dixon

14th Oct 2012, 09:58

maxred:
Perhaps Cirrus, in line with Cirrus owners should consider this. They may already have such a programme
This program exists and I would highly recommend that to every person flying a Cirrus, not just the owners.

The stats however are worrisome on Cirrus incidents, linked to IFR flight, and this can only be attributed to a training deficiency, either instruments, false sense of security, lack of systems knowledge, but it is a fundamental lack of training on type
This is endeed worrisome, but it is NOT a feature of the Cirrus. The stats are pretty much identical to other high-performance singles (e.g. Barron), as outlined above, therefore there is a training issue in GA.

maxred

14th Oct 2012, 09:59

This is endeed worrisome, but it is NOT a feature of the Cirrus. The stats are pretty much identical to other high-performance singles (e.g. Barron), as outlined above, therefore there is a training issue in GA.

Point taken and I agree

Rory Dixon

14th Oct 2012, 10:05

Pace:
The whole approach to the chute comes over as wishy washy and amateurish rather than a properly researched and directed SOPThis is your impression, but I do have to tell you this is due to a lack of information on your side.
If I recall right, you were thinking about chartering a Cirrus. Do yourself a favor. Invest $65 and buy yourself a one year membership in COPA, the Cirrus owner and pilot association. It will be the most cost effective investment you ever did in aviation.
Reserve yourself (at least) two weekends for reading the vast amount of information available and then start asking your questions to the knowledgeable people there. You will very soon see that your statement above is just not true. Joining COPA will have impact on the safety of your Cirrus flying. COPA members have a much lower number of accidents than non-COPA Cirrus pilots.

Pace

14th Oct 2012, 16:49

I could have lifted many posts from the Irish Sea crossing thread, regarding you not wanting to fly single engine pistons. Ever!!!!

Max Red

Please feel free as you are talking absolute rubbish so go reading and cut and paste.
Please be accurate and back up what you say not what you imagine or want to read in my posts.
I have 3000 hours in piston twins and around 900 in singles crossing large expanses of water IN SINGLES was a risk I was prepared to take and DID take but nevertheless a risk.

Pace

Pace

14th Oct 2012, 16:53

Rory

When we have one pilot here who claims to have done the COPA course and states he will pull the chute for every single engine failure regardless ??? That for me is worrying!

I also find it worrying that the manufacturer treats the whole chute decision going into absolute detail on advice for a forced landing but when it comes to the chute all they can say is that the pilot may CONSIDER the use of the chute if a forced landing is not advisable. wow!!

Pace

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.

So I stand by every word I have said

007helicopter

14th Oct 2012, 20:27

When we have one pilot here who claims to have done the COPA course and states he will pull the chute for every single engine failure regardless ??? That for me is worrying!

Pace we are likely never going to agree on this which is fine but as previously stated my decision has been arrived at over a period of years and I am sticking with it.

Commercial Air Taxi companies in the USA have adopted the same principal for their SOP so there must be some mileage in it but everyone is free to do what they want.

The sad thing is there are to many deaths where the Pilot could have saved their lives and that of PAX if they had pulled the chute and not attempted an off airport landing.

One valid point you have raised is the outcome of CAPS in high winds and this is an area which I need to consider more, not only in terms of lateral speed impacting a solid object on the ground but I believe in very high winds (not sure of the number) the aircraft could be dragged along the ground by the chute, I need to consider this more.

I also find it worrying that the manufacturer treats the whole chute decision going into absolute detail on advice for a forced landing but when it comes to the chute all they can say is that the pilot may CONSIDER the use of the chute if a forced landing is not advisable. wow!!

Pace that is simply not true, the POH has a section on CAPS (from memory section 10) with much more detail, I am not justifying what Cirrus do or don't say in there POH just pointing out I think your statement is totally misleading.

Pace

14th Oct 2012, 22:25

007

I am only using your interpretation of when to use the chute as an example and trying to have a discussion on possible pitfalls with that policy.So please do not take it personally as I know others hold your view!

In the past and present individual chutes are used to abandon an unflyable aircraft or one where the pilot has irretrievably lost control hence glider pilots and aerobatic pilots carry chutes!

This is a different concept to the normal use of a chute as now the arguement is to use the chute with a perfectly flyable aircraft!

I do not know? You maybe right but surely this new concept needs and deserves discussion without such sensitive protectionism at anyone who dares question the sensibility or possible pitfalls in such use of a chute.

Normally if anything major goes wrong with the jet I fly it is straight to the emergency checklist or the flight manual and then to follow the manufacturers procedures for dealing with it!

Not so in this case.

Nowhere does the manufacturer state engine failure pull the chute or even worse pull the chute regardless of the situation.

I am sold on the Cirrus and the OPTION of a chute I am not convinced of its use other than for a true unflyable emergency so convince me and as a matter of fact convince the manufacturer too.

Pace

Big Pistons Forever

14th Oct 2012, 22:42

I tell all my students that when the engine fails the insurance company just bought the plane. Under pretty much every circumstance IMO, the only advantage of doing a conventional forced approach in a Cirrus is there will be a possibility that the airplane will not be damaged. If the chute is used the airplane will definitely be damaged and possibly written off but at a much higher probability of no or low injuries. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I find even the 30kt wind example unpersuasive as yes if you were to touch down exactly into the wind you would in the best case scenario have a forward speed of around 35kts, But you have to first make it to a piece of flat ground. It is very easy to screw up a forced approach in such high winds with a resultant touch down short of the desired point and probably involving hitting something hard at flying speed and still in the air. Those are the killer accidents.

Pace

14th Oct 2012, 23:00

BPF

Fine ! you maybe right but then get this accepted as standard procedure by the manufacturer as well as the CAA for a change in training procedures in this aircraft. That is what I am banging on about!
You do not know neither do I !!! We both hold opinions but that is all they are opinions

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

14th Oct 2012, 23:53

...I am not convinced of its use other than for a true unflyable emergency...

I am not convinced either & the idea of voluntarily relinquishing control of a flyable aircraft does not sit comfortably with me.

At the same time I am mindful that the statistics for off-airport landings following engine failure in a SEP are not comforting. From memory I believe about 30% of such incidents as are reported result in injury or worse to the aircraft occupants (though that may be skewed as some successful off-airport landings may not be reported).

I still remember practising forced landings with my first instructor & was in awe of his ability to slip the aircraft down to within inches of the ground & then with pinpoint accuracy halt the descent, add just enough power to fly in ground effect to warm the engine & then climb away. A few weeks later, faced with a real engine failure whilst flying solo, that same instructor was killed after hitting power wires on the final approach (see G-BKDZ (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=18628)).

No matter how skilled the pilot, there is an element of unavoidable risk in off-airport landings which may be greater than we'd like to think and, in spite of my natural disinclination to knowingly surrender control of a flyable aircraft, pulling the 'chute may statistically offer a better chance of survival following engine failure, even for the highly experienced. This can't just be dismissed & is worthy of serious debate.

However, this thread started after a 'chute pull in a perfectly functioning aircraft because the pilot lacked the skill and/or confidence to continue to fly it. This IMO is also worth exploring further & to me highlights the mismatch between current PPL/IR training (this pilot held a current IR AIUI) & the capabilities of a TAA such as the Cirrus.

mad_jock

15th Oct 2012, 00:00

However, this thread started after a 'chute pull in a perfectly functioning aircraft because the pilot lacked the skill and/or confidence to continue to fly it.

Thats my view on it as well.

The chute meaning that they can tell everyone what a plonker they were is nice and more than likely saves more money to the manufacture than not having to do extensive tests to prove that it wasn't a design fault.

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

Sillert,V.I.

15th Oct 2012, 00:04

...but then get this accepted as standard procedure by the manufacturer as well as the CAA for a change in training procedures in this aircraft. ...

This is unlikely to happen, simply because of the product liability issue. So long as the pilot is still flying the aircraft, any undesirable outcome can be put down to "pilot error". Pulling the 'chute is essentially turning to the manufacturer & saying "you have control" - if the manufacturer makes it a formal recommendation in the POH, the lawyers will have a field day if the worst happens.

Big Pistons Forever

15th Oct 2012, 03:31

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

Yes absolutely...... but they did. Do you really think Death is the appropriate penalty for their carelessness ?

007helicopter

15th Oct 2012, 04:55

I still remember practising forced landings with my first instructor & was in awe of his ability to slip the aircraft down to within inches of the ground & then with pinpoint accuracy halt the descent, add just enough power to fly in ground effect to warm the engine & then climb away. A few weeks later, faced with a real engine failure whilst flying solo, that same instructor was killed after hitting power wires on the final approach (see G-BKDZ).

BTW No offense taken from anybody and it is a very useful debate, the last few posts for me serve well to demonstrate the polar opinions which are most hard to change.

The quote above sums up in the real world how dangerous for all forced landings are, maybe on average 80% work, not great odds to me.

It also reminded me of earlier this year I decided to do some PFL's from 2000ft above Rochester airport and dead stick landings, it was fairly calm, I was fresh, I knew it was coming etc. The first one I may have made across the fence but was dangerously short, so aborted at 300ft, the second two were spot on greaser landings.

It only served to convince me more that for me, the chute is right option, I am just not good enough to ensure the right landing spot, reasonable surface, no obstructions etc when the heat is on, I may be tried, I will certainly be highly stressed and adrenalin will be pumping.

I have no desire to fly all the way to the scene of the accident.

I also think trying to change Cirrus / CAA / FAA advice on this will likely never happen, it is just for me an informed personal choice based on my view of the world.

007helicopter

15th Oct 2012, 05:04

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

I don't think there is much argument on this point but in all our flying history's there for the grace of god go you or I.

We have all made mistakes, some stupid, some down to ignorance, but we are all here to now use those mistakes to learn and hopefully not do it again.

This guy lost control, lost altitude and 100% correctly pulled the chute, I do not believe the manufacturer, FAA or Insurance company will argue with or fault that decision.

Neither do I believe they will fault a decision to pull the chute in the event of engine failure over the beautiful South Downs meadows, Beech at Le Touquet or anywhere else.

englishal

15th Oct 2012, 07:59

Regarding the Cirrus, I say again, it is only because we hear about the chute on the news that we discuss it. Yesterday I read an AAIB report of a 206 which just flew into the ground in the Uk a while back (CFIT). You can read all manner of "PA28 - VMC into IMC" type accidents on the AAIB website, people seem to do it every year. Worse than stuffing up an approach is you get some idiot VFR only pilot who decides to press on and then gets themselves into the ****e. Read the sobering accident report of the chap in a PA28 who decided to ditch it in the channel next to a ship after electrical failure. The plane was perfectly flyable, he had enough fuel, he could have saved himself and his aeroplane. Very sad.

My point is that it is not remarkable if a PPL stuffs his aeroplane, but it is remarkable that a pilot saves 4 lives by using a chute to bring his aeroplane down to earth.

mad_jock

15th Oct 2012, 10:05

Do you really think Death is the appropriate penalty for their carelessness ?

No but I would prefer that we cure the base problem and not use an engineering fix to cover up poor training.

I am not actually against the chute as such and those that want to have it I am more than happy they have it.

But this in my view comes down to the age old problem that exercises 1-12 are not being taught properly or being understood.

007helicopter

15th Oct 2012, 13:11

But this in my view comes down to the age old problem that exercises 1-12 are not being taught properly or being understood.

Personally I think the whole PPL deal woefully prepares any student for real life flying, they have to then do 100's of hours of trial and error or be in a position where they can afford and have the mentality for on going training.

Inevitably in that Journey a few fail in practice in the real world.

I am suggesting more enforced training or cost as that would likely kill of GA totally, our hobby has a risk and decision making is a key factor.

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2012, 13:13

Since we have gravitated back to the chute debate, I thought I might have a go at summing up my thoughts

Inevitably, when you follow this thread, there are contributions from very experienced pilots, inexperienced pilots and the whole gambit in between. It is not surprising the more experienced pilots are those that prefer to trust to their own skills when it comes to a forced landing. They also believe all pilots should be as skilled as they are. This is understandable; most of us look at the world based on our own experiences.

Instructors, and those that regularly fly with others, have the best chance of looking at things through the eyes of others. I have always said that most “amateur” pilots are not very good at forced landings. Many don’t practice PFLs and therefore rely on the last PFLs they did as part of their two yearly review.

I think there is a very real danger arguing what other pilots should do based on your own skills. That to me suggests a certain detachment from reality.

The skill of the pilot is therefore the first element in considering whether or not to deploy the chute. It is pointless arguing pilots should be more skilled and / or better trained, because that is a different argument. It may have merit, but we have to accept we are where we are and it will take along time to change.

There is some evidence to suggest skilled pilots consider themselves more infallible than less skilled pilots. There are numerous accounts of high time, highly experienced and current pilots killing themselves in situations you would least expect. The account in this thread regarding the instructor that hit wires is a very good example.

Pilots believing they are better than they really are, or more immune from bad luck than the rest of us is the second element.

And so I believe pilots must detach themselves from their preconceived ideas. There will be those pilots who believe they will almost always do a better job without the chute and there will be those that believe the contrary.

This seems and odd situation to have reached but I suspect one of which most of us are guilty.

If we can detach ourselves from these preconceived ideas we might do a better job of assessing when we should use the chute.

As this thread has so amply illustrates there are examples where using the chute is less likely to result in the best outcome. I have said many times before Cirrus cant offer certainty where none exists. Rightly or wrongly they did not conduct an exhaustive trial into chute deployments, undoubtedly because the cost and risks would have been prohibitive. Consider for a moment the cost of developing hot seats for the military. Rightly or wrongly our knowledge of chutes has evolved, as there have been growing examples of their deployment. Cirrus cant give definitive guidance without “doing the tests”. Imagine the extent to which Cirrus would be torn to threads in court if they included a SOP which could not be supported on the basis of a comprehensive test program.

The accumulated evidence is that chute deployments work pretty well. I don’t know the actual figures but my guess is that over 90% of chute deployments have been successful. By any reckoning that is pretty good odds. Should we compare those odds with conventional forced landings? That sounds a nice idea but in fact is fraught with difficulties. Aircraft impact the ground for all sorts of reasons, including loss of control in IMC, engine failure, structural damage, pilot incapacitation to mention just a few. Chute deployments have been associated with all of these. In some cases I suspect we would all agree the chute “saved the day”. If an aileron detaches chances are none of us is going to “land” the aircraft. The difficult is therefore comparing apples with apples and not pears. However it would be interesting to compare cases of engine failure in VMC followed by a dead stick landings with and without the chute. The results of such a comparison across a wide pilot population would be interesting.

This leaves me to make the following assessment:

1. I practice forced landings, but not as often as I should. I think I am a better pilot than I really am, and in my dreams I always imagine I will “make” that small field, but when I take a reality check I realise it’s just in my dreams. My experience of flying with other pilots is that there are many I would give very good odds they wouldn’t make that small field, and I mean odds of 50:1 or better. I know, because I watch them try.
2. If I look down at L2K beach when the tide is out, its winter and deserted, I know I can land on the beach in just about any conditions you like. I also understand the risks of ending up in the water even a short distance from shore with an off shore wind blowing.
3. I sail and I know what the sea can be like off shore in certain conditions. I have read a lot about ditching and I still don’t fancy it! I like the idea of landing on water vertically.
4. I am aware that in strong winds there will be a lot of drift with the chute deployed. I am also aware that strong winds are my friend when it comes to a forced landing, but also my enemy in that it is so much easier to end up short or incorrectly aligned.
5. I know there are some circumstances in which I wouldn’t use the chute.
6. The rest of the time I am going to take a long hard look not only at what I see out of the cockpit window but what I feel in my heart. I am going to set to one side how good a pilot I think I am and then try and assess whether I really believe I can pull off a perfect forced landing. I am going to remind myself if I get it wrong in almost all conditions the impact is going to be worse than under the chute. Then I will make my final decision.

A and C

15th Oct 2012, 13:20

What is the minimum deployment height for the chute?

007helicopter

15th Oct 2012, 13:20

Another thing occured to me in this discussion is why more high end manufactuer's do not adopt BRS, I note Cessna now do on certain models and I wonder if that is only a "me to" marketing exercise to try and counteract Cirrus.

Looking at the last 12-18 months fatal's on TBM's for example there seems to be a big problem, you would assume a TBM driver is a pretty advanced pilot, had type training, has an IR, has a turbine reliable engine, FIKI etc etc, yet the 3 or 4 fatal's in the last months appear from memory Pilot Error and my thinking is a Chute could have likely saved them.

For a TBM owner buying a new aircraft the cost and weight implications would be Pea Nuts compared to the total ownership cost, just a thought.......

What is the minimum deployment height for the chute?

A&C Here is the official stand from the POH, I know the general thinking from COPA is that +1000ft it is pretty much guaranteed to inflate fully and stabalise, 500-1000ft it is worth a punt depending on what is straight ahead of you, some believe worth a go at below 500ft, my personal choice on take off that anything above 500ft the CAPS is active.

Deployment Altitude
No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the
actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the
airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as
other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a
successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the
demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a
stabilized parachute is 920 feet. Altitude loss from level flight
deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these
numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a
cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be
time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come
almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful
deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the
only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the
system without delay.
Deployment Attitude
The CAPS has been tested in all flap configurations at speeds ranging
from Vso to Va. Most CAPS testing was accomplished from a level
attitude. Deployment from a spin was also tested. From these tests it
was found that as long as the parachute was introduced to the free air
by the rocket, it would successfully recover the aircraft into its level
descent attitude under parachute. However, it can be assumed that to
minimize the chances of parachute entanglement and reduce aircraft
oscillations under the parachute, the CAPS should be activated from a
wings-level, upright attitude if at all possible.

Fuji I think you have a very balanced view, just to clarify in my own mind are you an instructor?

One point I would make re the L2K scenario or other beech landings, I have been on that Beech and the sand seemed soft, I assume tide out it is a real firm base?

But I do not know that for a fact so would still pull the chute given 1000ft and immediate and sudden engine failure.

I have never seen a plane land on anything other than firm hard sand, how would a Cirrus or other aircraft react on soft powdery sand?

Also I have seen an estuary that look nice and smooth but are in fact sludge or mud which could be a disaster, again I do not know if that exists around L2K when the tide is out.

I am again assuming as I genuinely do not know maybe a chance of digging in and kart Wheeling if the surface is soft?

I do agree with your point re most guys thinking they are better than they actually are and it may well be human nature that this attitude hardens the longer we do something successfully.

Richard Westnot

16th Oct 2012, 19:47

Out of interest, how many companies are there here in the UK that are approved to carry out structural repairs to the Cirrus?

Pace

17th Oct 2012, 13:56

I do agree with your point re most guys thinking they are better than they actually are and it may well be human nature that this attitude hardens the longer we do something successfully.

007

It has nothing at all to do with being better than you actually are but what is likely to be a succesful outcome and that is far from clear!!!
The pilot who wears a parchute and irretrievably looses control or breaks the aircraft has no choice but to abandon ship.
This is very different and many here including Fuji are failing to acknowledge the huge difference.
That is abandoning a perfectly flyable aircraft in preference to the chute both actions carry risk!
Say in your example that you are gliding down for a forced landing at 300 feet you decide there are unseen hazards on the landing strip you have selected.
You pull the chute and fall the 300 feet with the chute not fully deployed! You kill yourself while a collision under control you would have survived.
I am frankly amazed at the blind faith in the chute to save all situations and blind reluctance to discuss without feeling affronted.
Fuji I am amazed that Cirrus will detail and recommend the uncerainty of a forced landing but drop detailing the chute as if they have red hot coals in their hands.

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

17th Oct 2012, 14:08

Say in your example that you are gliding down for a forced landing at 300 feet you decide there are unseen hazards on the landing strip you have selected.
You pull the chute and fall the 300 feet with the chute not fully deployed! You kill yourself while a collision under control you would have survived.

You could as easily argue that if you'd pulled the 'chute at 1000 feet, it would deploy correctly & you'd survive, but that by choosing to continue, you could be killed by the hazards you couldn't have seen until it was too late to deploy the 'chute.

I'm now thinking along the lines of setting a decision height after engine failure, at which point you look at what you can see, & either commit to continue to a landing, or pull the handle.

The biggest hazard could turn out to be prevarication. You need to have decided what you're going to do by minimum safe deployment altitude & then stick with it.

But if the donk quits at 5000 feet, you've time for evaluation & IMO it's poor airmanship to throw away the choice by sticking doggedly to a prepared plan, whatever that might be.

Stay flexible until you have to commit, but then stick wholeheartedly with your chosen option - in just the same way that I'd never try to land after commencing a go-around at decision height, even if the viz suddenly improved & I had good sight of the runway.

A and C

17th Oct 2012, 14:12

The only company that I know of in the UK that can cary out large structural repairs to all composite aircraft Is Flight Composites an Membury.

Fuji Abound

17th Oct 2012, 19:39

It has nothing at all to do with being better than you actually are but what is likely to be a succesful outcome and that is far from clear!!!
The pilot who wears a parchute and irretrievably looses control or breaks the aircraft has no choice but to abandon ship.
This is very different and many here including Fuji are failing to acknowledge the huge difference.
That is abandoning a perfectly flyable aircraft in preference to the chute both actions carry risk

Pace

In all seriousness I will have one more go - after that forgive me but we will have to disagree. First of, I just cant grasp your point. Of course I acknowledge there is a difference - in one instance you are relying entirely on luck if you like, in the other you are relying on luck and skill. That is to simplistic an analysis though. In the case of the chute you have no control (or perhaps very little) exactly where and how you land. In the case of a hand landing the point of landing is as good (or as bad) as the skill you exhibit. Both have a commonality - luck. In the case of the chute you have very little control where you will land and therefore what you will hit. In the case of the hand landing in most cases you probably cant be absolutely certain whether you will hit a ditch, a power line, a large rock or some other immovable object.

So of course both carry risks and both carry different risks. The pilot is therefore asked to make a risk assessment - based not on what Cirrus say (because I acknowledge they say very little) but based on the evidence. The evidence has been well rehearsed. Some conclude the evidence is persuasive that the chute justifies abandoning a perfectly serviceable aircraft, some don't and some prefer to determine this on the circumstances at the time.

I don't see that as too difficult a concept.

Fuji I am amazed that Cirrus will detail and recommend the uncerainty of a forced landing but drop detailing the chute as if they have red hot coals in their hands.

Pace

Again in all seriousness surely you are not. You must be well aware how litigious Americans are, and this is their main market. We aren't that far behind. You couldn't possibly give recommendations based on zero evidence. We all know that Cirrus did almost no testing of the chute to give a meaningful analysis of the extent you are likely to survive a chute landing compared with a hand landing. Cirrus would be torn to shreds the first time a chute landing went wrong. You must know that.

So of course they are going to be coy on the chute. Maybe in time when there have been enough deployments they might consider giving an analysis based on the field evidence but 30 odd deployments is not enough. You know yourself just how extensive the tests must be to market an aircraft with spin recoverability and that is an accepted test sequence where the outcome should involve no luck, unlike the chute where in every circumstance there is an element of luck involved.

For these reasons I just don't understand how you expect Cirrus to do anything different?

I also don't understand why you imply their solution is in some way a poor solution. Cirrus offer an alternative. Some would argue in the majority of cases the chute offers a better alternative based on the evidence to date than a hand landing, others would not. That is the problem - you must make up your own mind whether or not to pull the handle. In a way its no different from crossing oceans or channels in a single - some look at the evidence and wouldnt get of bed and some wouldnt give it a second thought. Neither is right or wrong they just perceive risk differently, are too stupid to assess the risk, or cant be bothered.

Simples really.

007helicopter

17th Oct 2012, 20:02

Contacttower

17th Oct 2012, 20:08

6. The rest of the time I am going to take a long hard look not only at what I see out of the cockpit window but what I feel in my heart. I am going to set to one side how good a pilot I think I am and then try and assess whether I really believe I can pull off a perfect forced landing. I am going to remind myself if I get it wrong in almost all conditions the impact is going to be worse than under the chute. Then I will make my final decision.

At the end of the day that is ultimately all one can do...the chute is just there to give one another option, at what point to take that option should be left up to the pilot. It wouldn't be reasonable for Cirrus to start writing SOPs along the lines of "If field measures more than 2000ft x 5000ft consider conventional landing" or "do not pull chute over school"...every situation in which one might expect to consider the chute will be different and while Cirrus instructors will no doubt give guidance on different possible scenarios the ultimate choice is the pilot's.

Some pilots will inevitably reach different conclusions about what to do in a situation...this is because, in private flying at least, we can't "SOPise" all our reactions beyond following basic drills for things like engine failures; we have to think and then act based on our perception of the situation; this is the same for decision making that has nothing to do with chutes...

Some pilots may tend to be more 'pro-chute' in a situation, which yes may mean surrendering control of a perfectly flyable aircraft if it is deemed that for some reason a safe conventional landing is unlikely, or on balance less likely than a chute assisted one.

I really think we are over thinking the whole "chute" thing on this thread...it's just a device that gives one another option in an emergency.

And as for the "moral hazard" arguments about risk taking they have been done to death on here and I don't see anything on this thread to add to that discussion...

007helicopter

17th Oct 2012, 20:09

You could as easily argue that if you'd pulled the 'chute at 1000 feet, it would deploy correctly & you'd survive, but that by choosing to continue, you could be killed by the hazards you couldn't have seen until it was too late to deploy the 'chute.

I'm now thinking along the lines of setting a decision height after engine failure, at which point you look at what you can see, & either commit to continue to a landing, or pull the handle.

Sillert I think you should have a pre determined policy clearly in mind what ever is correct for you but I still think one of the big problems is what looks good and tempting and doable at 1000ft is a different picture at lets say 300ft when the chute is no longer viable.

Why not just reduce the risk (not eliminate it) and pull the chute in an off airport landing?

You said somewhere else you would consider this bad airmanship, which I accept is a common thought, however in a hypothetical scenario if you were transporting my children and needed to do an off airport landing in an emergency I would prefer you pull the chute.

Fuji Abound

17th Oct 2012, 20:14

Pace

Just one more thought.

I explained the luck involved in both hand and chute landings

It also occurred to me that as the element of luck increases with one it decreases with the other.

Take a beach landing on a wonderful hard sand beach, tide out, no people. There is very little luck involved with a hand landing. There is almost no judgement, you have miles of beach, all you have to do is manage to keep control of the aircraft and the landing should go well. On the other hand with the chute you might drift into the sea or on to the ground beyond the beach - there is more luck.

Take on the other hand a rock strewn area of the Scotland. There is a lot of luck involved with a hand landing. You have almost no control what you will hit. On the other hand with the chute you are pretty much assured whatever you hit it is much more likely to be a lot less hard than with the same hand landing. Chances are the outcome will be better with the chute, given that in both instances skill cant avoid you hitting something, just that without the chute it will probably be faster and therefore "harder".

As the element of luck increases with one it decreases with the other. For each pilot there is a meeting point which determines at which point you elect to pull and at which point you elect to hand land.

007helicopter

17th Oct 2012, 20:32

Take a beach landing on a wonderful hard sand beach, tide out, no people. There is very little luck involved with a hand landing. There is almost no judgement, you have miles of beach, all you have to do is manage to keep control of the aircraft and the landing should go well. On the other hand with the chute you might drift into the sea or on to the ground beyond the beach - there is more luck.

Fuji I do not disagree with the point about luck, but my point in your example here would be unless you know personally that beach or area well how do you not know from 1000ft that it is not thick mud or silt?

Sure if I knew the surface was as described in that specific situation I would not disagree a good option.

Fuji Abound

17th Oct 2012, 21:40

007

You don't, or at least you might not, and I would agree. Equally you might have walked the beach and know.

Its all down to experience and yet another reason why you and I would argue if you don't know what the terrain is like the chute might be a better option.

We all know its worth taking in different sorts of terrain from the air and comparing them with the actual terrain on the ground just in case. We drive past or walk over different fields and think would we want to land in that - and it gives us a reference. I have a pretty good idea what most of the fields are like used for grazing on the Downs and I have walked across L2K beach many times at low tide.

To the extent that Pace argues I suspect we shouldn't lose sight that many fields do present pretty good landing sites and chances are most forced landings will be pretty successful - at least reading the reports that does seem to be reflected by the evidence.

007helicopter

18th Oct 2012, 05:56

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA012
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 06, 2012 in Birmingham, AL
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N80KW
Injuries: 1 Serious,1 Minor.

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. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On October 6, 2012, about 1215 central daylight time, a Cirrus SR22, N80KW, operated by a private individual, was substantially damaged during deployment of the Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS), following a loss of control during a missed approach at Birmingham International Airport (BHM), Birmingham, Alabama. The private pilot incurred minor injuries and the passenger was seriously injured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the flight that departed Charles B Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC), Kansas City, Missouri; destined for BHM.

The pilot stated that while on the instrument landing system approach to runway 6 at BHM, he reported missed approach at 2,000 feet to the BHM air traffic control tower. The tower controller instructed the pilot to fly the runway heading; however, the pilot reported to the controller that he was unable due to weather. The tower controller then instructed the pilot to fly a heading of 180 degrees and climb to 4,000 feet. The pilot acknowledged the instruction and during the turn, lost control of the airplane. He then observed the altimeter indicating a descent through 1,700 feet and elected to deploy the CAPS. The airplane subsequently descended and came to rest in a commercial parking lot, about 2 miles south of BHM.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed damage to the fuselage and a puncture of the left wing near the left main landing gear.

The airplane was equipped with a remote data module (RDM), intended to record flight and engine parameters. The inspector recovered the RDM from the airplane and forwarded it to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory, Washington, DC, for data download.

The recorded weather at BHM, at 1153, included an overcast ceiling at 700 feet above ground level (1350 feet above mean sea level).

007helicopter

18th Oct 2012, 06:02

In summary of this incident:

a) Probably most of us agree that a competent, prepared current pilot should not have lost control in this scenario.

b) Had he not pulled the chute, after losing control at that altitude there is a reasonable chance he would not have been able to recover and he and his pax would be dead.

Contacttower

18th Oct 2012, 06:46

Sounds like as well as being somewhat dishonest in the interview about the reasons for the crash he also downplayed what happened to his passenger...not sure he mentioned that she had been 'seriously injured' (as the report says...). :E

Pace

18th Oct 2012, 06:55

007

Totally agree without the chute both would have been dead! This pilot should not have been on an instrument approach as he was obviously totally incapable of flying intruments.

I would pull the chute over extensive forests if I had an engine failure or over mountains where my only landing was on a boulder shrewn river bed.
I would not pull the chute over a lush green English country side even if I took out a hedge in a subsequent forced landing.

As long as you keep the aircraft flying you are unlikely to kill yourself in a forced landing.

I would be cautious of pulling the chute on strong wind days.
007 I am not against the chute but am against its use as an answer to all ills

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

18th Oct 2012, 07:46

Whilst agreeing totally that without the 'chute these guys would almost certainly be dead, the extent of the injuries to the occupants confirms that deploying the chute is by no means without risk.

We've concentrated here on the engine failure scenario, but remembering that this airplane was perfectly functional until the 'chute was deployed, I'm thinking about the merits of building additional functionality into the autopilot to recover the aircraft in this kind of situation. I suspect it would be technically straightforward to build in an emergency use only 'autoland' function which would recover the aircraft, climb to MSA, proceed to the nearest ILS & descend on it, squawking 7700 all the way. Whilst the cost/complexity/liability issues associated with certifying this would be horrendous, I'm betting even a crude implementation would statistically have a better outcome than pulling the 'chute.

However, if the pilot had obtained proper training & maintained currency in real-weather IFR flying before getting into this situation, all this would have been prevented.

Pace

18th Oct 2012, 09:28

The answer is that pilots fly within their own and the aircraft limits!
Sadly not everyone is a natural instrument pilot or not current! Some slip through the net and get ratings they maybe should not have!
The way this pilot went straight for the chute makes me suspicious that he knew the trip maybe out of his depth and the chute was indeed part of his game plan!
A get out of prison for free card if he could not handle things!
Yes the passenger received serious injuries in the chuted descent.
The chute is a major advancement if used correctly! Used to make up for bad flying skills worries me! It's not more and more gadgets to compensate for bad pilots which is the answer!
The chute is not an answer to all ills as some are suggesting but it is another excellent option!
Pilots have choices the more options the more choices!
More choices more options to make the wrong choice!
It is only training and experience which will help making the right choice!
For me the chute and when to use it has not been properly thought out!

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

18th Oct 2012, 10:19

The answer is that pilots fly within their own and the aircraft limits!

This has been true since the dawn of aviation, but failure to comply with this remains the underlying cause of a great many accidents and incidents.

Is the answer better training, or designing aircraft with greater 'abuse-resistance"?

How much capability should we build into the aircraft to mitigate the risk? If we give pilots safer aircraft, will they fly them more recklessly? If the manufacturers see fit to provide a BRS, then why not also fit the autopilot with an emergency "Land Me" button?

My own view is that more attention needs to be given in basic training to the dangers of "pushing the boundaries". This IMO needs instructors with real experience & cannot properly be taught by airline wannabees whose own handling skills probably wouldn't be sufficient to safely allow students to experience just how out of control it's possible to get & still recover.

I was extremely fortunate in having several instructors with 20,000 hrs+ and any attempt at my saying "You have control" if I got out of my depth would be met with folded arms and the comment "you got into this, now you fly out of it". Many of those early lessons were taken on days when the rest of the school was grounded by the weather & in consequence when the day came to venture forth on my own I was better prepared for real-world conditions. It didn't stop me making the same damn fool mistakes, but it did ensure that they were survivable.

.

Pace

18th Oct 2012, 10:31

Silvaire

Totally agree and that is how you should be taught!
I also agree with safety devices and your point about pilots still flying out of limits! There is nothing more tragic than pilots getting killed. I have lost seven friends some very experienced so the chute is a major breakthrough!
I feel a study should be made on the chute looking at all scenarios and an official set of guidelines created in its use!
From
That a course could be setup so that pilots can quickly interpret whether to use the chute and make a speedy decision on using the chute or not !

Pace

Fuji Abound

18th Oct 2012, 10:41

Pace

You do seem to have become overly fixated on the chute.

Most accidents are caused because the pilot hasn't thought things through, was not current, was poorly trained or a combination of all three.

If you consider your earlier comments the accident was caused because the pilot was incapable of flying a simple instrument approach - period. That failure had nothing to do with the chute. OK we can debate whether he would have attempted the approach without the chute but I suspect we would end up disagreeing. The accident reports are littered with pilots who attempt approaches no different from this and came to grief and did not have chutes. I just find it difficult to conceive in the vast majority of cases anyone would go into a situation because of the chute. Most Cirrus pilots are owners, insurance aside they probably have a lot of pride in their aircraft, and they really dont want to end up in the mud somewhere with an involved insurance claim on their hands. I think this pilot thought he could handle the approach - period. He didn't expect a missed and when it was called as happens time and time again it went badly wrong. In an article in Flyer this month they say flying a missed approach is one of the most difficult things a pilot does and one of the most common causes of grief. Your currency and experience makes a missed a non event but have you forgotten for some that is the last thing it is?

No I really believe that in the vast majority of the incidents we have seen the pilot was just as capable of getting himself into the situation with or without the chute and would have done so not because he had a chute but because of poor planning, poor training, a lack of currency and possibly because of a relatively higher performance aircraft that could take him to the incident a bit quicker that his brain could keep up with. If that were not true why would we see exactly the same accidents occurring with the same frequency across the GA fleet? As always there will be exceptions to the rule and there will always be the one that takes on a trip knowing the risks are high and only because he believes he has the get out of jail card. Strangely I am guilty. I think three times about flying a single at night these days but maybe only once if it had a chute.

Pace

18th Oct 2012, 11:02

Fuji

But this is not the issue with me! The chute is a wonderful addition to safety! I tend to feel it will lure pilots to fly in conditions they normally would not be happy in but that's another argument!
The argument has developed over when and under what circumstances the chute should be used.
One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .

Pace

englishal

18th Oct 2012, 11:24

In my humble experience, most multi-engine jet fliers are no longer happy crossing the channel in a SEP. Which leads me to think that as you progress in aviation, your limits raise up. It is certainly true of me, I used to fly dodgey old PA28's and C172 over the mountains of california at night. Nowadays I use a twin.

But I would take something like a Cirrus and then if the donk failed and I pulled the chute, you could discuss on here how it pushed me to make a bad decision. Had I been in the PA28 all you'd be saying is "lets wait for the AAIB report" and "My condolences" etc. and had I been in the Twin you wouldn't be any the wiser. This leads me to believe that all the parachute does (apart from save lives) is draw attention to the fact that someone survived.

Fuji Abound

18th Oct 2012, 11:35

One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .

I dont think anyone is going quite that far. I gave some examples earlier and I think there was agreement even amoung the most "conservative" that they might not always pull the chute.

You talk about a proper study - but how do you think this could be conducted. The cost and risk of such a study would be enormous and couldn't be funded by Cirrus. Its not a lot different from saying there should be far more studies into the crash survivability of CATs. You can do all the simulations in the world (which is in itself vastly costly) but just as with cars you "need" to crash a lot into brick walls on bespoke rigs. Only the big manufacturers can afford to do that, and that incurs vast cost, so one can only imagine the cost of such a study for aircraft.

Proper studies are a great idea but no one is going to pay the bill - no one can afford to pay the bill.

I suggested earlier why I feel it is so difficult for Cirrus to even give "proper" guidance. Proper guidance must be based on some form of quantitative study and the study would need to stand up in court to scrutiny - catch 22, you are back to my earlier point, no one can afford to do the study.

So Cirrus were brave to incorporate a chute, and they seem to have been rewarded by pretty good evidence that landings under the chute in a range of conditions have so far proved reasonably safe. The evidence will grow as there are more deployments and at some point a more complete picture will evolve of the pros and cons. Some would argue the picture is already taking shape.

As others have said this is but a fraction of the debate on COPA; most Cirrus pilots (not all) are members and most Cirrus pilots take their flying very seriously. There is no shortage of highly qualified analysis albeit ultimately for those sufficiently interested you can only read the analysis and draw your own conclusions.

So to sum up I dont disagree with you and I doubt many would - but you wish for something you almost certainly cant have and therefore the argument becomes academic.

Yes we agree the chute warrants more study, but its not going to happen.

007helicopter

18th Oct 2012, 11:52

Yes we agree the chute warrants more study, but its not going to happen.

Only in the university of life, however I believe BRS themselves have done more testing and have much more data. Boris Popov the inventor who survived a 400ft fall in some sort of collapsed Microlight accident has very strong personal views on when and how to use it.

For more info about the company see BRS Aviation | Home (http://brsparachutes.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx)

Pace

18th Oct 2012, 15:00

007

You made a statement that you would use the chute as a SOP for all cases of engine failure! You may be right you maybe wrong!
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?
You mention above a microlight pilot deploying his chute at 400 feet. Great it worked on a microlight. Do the same on a Cirrus and you will freefall and kill yourself with at best a partially deployed chute.
Most engine failures occur just after take off when the engine is most stressed and a cirrus pilot conditioned to pull the chute might kill himself.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.
I brought up a possible problem of an engine failure flying in strong winds 30 to 50 kts typical of winter winds I have flown singles in.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.
You also have to consider not only your own life but those below you! One day some child or children will be killed under a descending Cirrus! Okay if the aircraft is unflyable you have no choice but to descend into a heavily built up area but to take the chute in a flyable aircraft over a built up area is very questionable.
We have a duty to those below too!
That is why a say to you that direction is needed and that can only come from considered knowledge and not some home made plan of action.
The possible consequences need discussion.
I also ask you to look at the fatalities in Cirrus! You mention engine failure and forced landings! How many are killed in forced landings where the pilot maintains flying speed?
From the stats I remember very few!
Ok pilots stall in but there is no excuse to do so only bad piloting and training.
What is a safe height for chute deployment? Is it 1000 feet or higher as I am pretty sure that will vary.
Please do not take this as a dig at you as you have brought up a valid discussion topic and as I said you maybe right to deploy on engine failure or you maybe wrong?
None of us know and we need to!
Why do you think Cirrus are happy to detail procedures for a forced landing and recommend a forced landing with a caveat of maybe consider the chute if a forced landing is not advisable!
Because a forced landing is a normal procedure in your training syllabus authorized by the CAA the chute is a relatively unknown factor authorized by no one!
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)

Pace

007helicopter

18th Oct 2012, 18:34

Pace, a lot of questions that I will do my best to answer from my personal present stance.

You made a statement that you would use the chute as a SOP for all cases of engine failure! You may be right you maybe wrong!
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?

Not really released data,I have come to this conclusion in the last few years as a personal decision, after making my own mind by:

a) reviewing 100% of Cirrus Fatal's
b) listening to the Pro & Con answers on COPA
c) Being strongly influenced by the opinions of fellow COPA member and volunteer input of a chap called Rick Beech. Here is his presentation on the matter CAPS... CONSIDER - M9 Presentation on Vimeo (long but worth it)

You mention above a microlight pilot deploying his chute at 400 feet. Great it worked on a microlight. Do the same on a Cirrus and you will freefall and kill yourself with at best a partially deployed chute.

Agreed, 400ft would be very uncertain territory in a Cirrus, This Guy was Boris Popov the inventor of BRS which has now sold 30,000 units worlwide and 5000+ to Cirrus, not a bad inventor.... He was the Mocrolight Pilot.

Most engine failures occur just after take off when the engine is most stressed and a cirrus pilot conditioned to pull the chute might kill himself.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.

Agreed EFATO is a high risk time, current thinking for formal Cirrus training is below 500ft aim for whatever ahead, above 500ft use the Chute, I personally as do many others as part of take off SOP at 500ft say out loud "Flaps & Caps" which I raise the flaps and then put my hand right on the CAPS handle to remind me it is active and double check the Pin out.

However most evidence suggests 1000ft is the known altitude for it to work very well, below that less certain in terms of full inflation.

I brought up a possible problem of an engine failure flying in strong winds 30 to 50 kts typical of winter winds I have flown singles in.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.

Sure I think high winds of this strength need further consideration (by me) However I can not remember in the last few years choosing to fly when ground speed winds this high, I do accept if I do this is an important factor that i need to think about more and it would seem logical that it could increase CAPS risk and reduce landing speed but also may make it trickier to end up where you hope in a glide.

You also have to consider not only your own life but those below you! One day some child or children will be killed under a descending Cirrus! Okay if the aircraft is unflyable you have no choice but to descend into a heavily built up area but to take the chute in a flyable aircraft over a built up area is very questionable.
We have a duty to those below too!

Agreed, 1st choice enough altitude to glide clear, but lets say it is approach like the guy in Alabama, I would rather have my kids in a school with a Cirrus randomly landing on it under CAPS descent than I would a Cirrus steaming in at anywhere from 70 to 200 knots out of control with likely hood of an impact fire. the other point of CAPS over any area is when the Rocket is activated there is a significant bang which I am reasonably sure people would look up to see what it was.

That is why a say to you that direction is needed and that can only come from considered knowledge and not some home made plan of action.
The possible consequences need discussion.

I am not sure there will be clear direction for the reasons Fuji has stated, I think it is down to PIC to use what ever they consider is the best option available to them based on their training & personal experience.

I also ask you to look at the fatalities in Cirrus! You mention engine failure and forced landings! How many are killed in forced landings where the pilot maintains flying speed?
From the stats I remember very few!

Forced landings due to straight forward engine failure are very rare, most are not a forced landing but Pilot Error and loss of control so in actual fact our debate has very little chance of happening with the millions of hours on the Cirrus fleet. I do agree if flying to the ground speed is critical and looking at fatality's in general on all types it seems plenty fail to do this.

Ok pilots stall in but there is no excuse to do so only bad piloting and training.

Maybe but for average PPL's harder to stay current and on top of the game, equally anyone can get distracted, over whelmed, stressed when things are going wrong.

What is a safe height for chute deployment? Is it 1000 feet or higher as I am pretty sure that will vary.

Most agree 1000ft is the minimum

Please do not take this as a dig at you as you have brought up a valid discussion topic and as I said you maybe right to deploy on engine failure or you maybe wrong?
None of us know and we need to!

Pace far from it being a Dig I welcome opposing views to question my own thinking, I have taken a few digs and GEP for example was IMHO condescending and quite sarcastic but that is fine and adds to the rich tapestry and entertainment value of pprune. However I am certain there will be no black and white answer if anyone is right or wrong.

Why do you think Cirrus are happy to detail procedures for a forced landing and recommend a forced landing with a caveat of maybe consider the chute if a forced landing is not advisable!

Dont know, to fit in with traditional training maybe, liability issue's perhaps.

Because a forced landing is a normal procedure in your training syllabus authorized by the CAA the chute is a relatively unknown factor authorized by no one!
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)

When you say authorized by no one, surely the FAA are ok with this having approved various aircraft with it as an option.

E&OE:E

A and C

18th Oct 2012, 19:19

The chute is authorized by no one but it is used under the the commanders responsabiltity to do anything he sees fit to assure the safety of persons both in the air and on the ground in an emergency situation.

Richard Westnot

18th Oct 2012, 20:31

A and C Thank you for the info.

I have 200hrs and 7 hours into a Cirrus conversion. They certainly tick all the boxes for me.

I can see where Pace is coming from within the debate, but for sure 007helicopter is on the money :ok:

Pace

19th Oct 2012, 12:50

007 and Fuji

Having watched the Caps pull video it is obvious that pulling the chute saves lives and a failure to do so looses lives.

So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.

Sadly the video does not paint a good picture of the pilots, their abilities or training! Something is wrong somewhere.

There are far to many flying into icing condition accidents, far too many loss of control in clouds but accepting that there are pilots in these incidents flying out of their ability margins pulling the chute is a much better option than the loss of lives.

Regarding engine failures again with such a mixed bag of pilot ability the chute would appear to be the best option.

But what is the message? Yes its go for the chute but it is a needed replacement for a lack of piloting skills which comes over in that video time after time rather than as a back up for those skills

Pace

007helicopter

19th Oct 2012, 14:06

Having watched the Caps pull video it is obvious that pulling the chute saves lives and a failure to do so looses lives.

So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.

I think Rick, who is a volunteer gives an incredible view on CAPS and I would encourage anyone who fly's a Cirrus (or other BRS aircraft) to invest an hour and watch it.

What is tragic is when you here of Fatal's and the CAPS locking pin is still in the lever to lock it, worse still one padlocked in a different type of aircraft.

In the Cirrus community not all believe in the value of CAPS or pay it lip service, many instructors do not train for CAPS situations so there is still a way to go with getting the message out which is why I believe these discussions are of value.

There are far to many flying into icing condition accidents, far too many loss of control in clouds but accepting that there are pilots in these incidents flying out of their ability margins pulling the chute is a much better option than the loss of lives.

I think to keep this in context the Cirrus record is about average for GA, but with all the safety features it should be better. The 94 Fatal incidents is over a decade with a fleet of 5000 + air frames and millions of flight hours are around what you would expect. Cirrus Pilots are probably in my observation more experienced than an average PPL GA pilot but also expose them selves to more risk than the average PPL GA pilot because of the capability of the aircraft.

(Very broad brush personal opinion - total number of fatals corrected)

Pace

19th Oct 2012, 14:28

007

97 fatal crashes out of 5000 airframes is roughly 1 in 50 destroyed which would be an atrocious record are you sure you have those numbers right?

Pace

007helicopter

19th Oct 2012, 16:36

Corrected to 94 fatal's

I believe equals something like 1.8 fatal's per 100,000 hours and this is pretty much the GA average.

Pace

19th Oct 2012, 19:20

1,8 per million seems very low does anyone have the SEP GA per million hours figure and the cirrus per million hours as that would be an interesting comparison ?

Pace

007helicopter

19th Oct 2012, 19:31

Pace, that's per 100 thousand hours not million.

007helicopter

19th Oct 2012, 19:38

Interestingly and on the plus side (touch wood) I believe no Cirrus fatal's yet on UK soil, I believe well over 100+ Cirrus in the UK

Pace

19th Oct 2012, 20:15

Pace, that's per 100 thousand hours not million.

My Typo error! That still is very low so would still like the GA SEP figures overall per 100,000 compared to the Cirrus figures per 100,000 hours.

007 thinking about the engine failure scenario 1000 feet agl should be the chute decision height!
The problem with a forced landing is having elected to force land its likely to be much lower before the pilot realizes its all going pear shaped ie probably in the last few hundred feet.
From that I can understand your SOP for chute use in an engine failure! as that decision needs to be made early!
Having said that I am pretty sure fatalities in a controlled forced landing where flight is maintained are very very low!
Fatalities occur where glides are stretched and the aircraft stalls.
Stalling an aircraft is totally in the hands of the pilot and an education thing! far better to have a controlled crash in a flying aircraft than a stall spin.
Bring in a headwind and a forced landing becomes a better and better option than a chute pull where the pilot has little or no control over the descent and landing spot or his horizontal speed.
An engine failure over inhospitable terrain or built up areas where a forced landing would be inadvisable would be a no brainer in using the chute but that descision needs to be made at 1000 feet agl and stuck too!

Pace

007helicopter

19th Oct 2012, 20:32

My Typo error! That still is very low so would still like the GA SEP figures overall per 100,000 compared to the Cirrus figures per 100,000 hours.

Pace actually I recall the average GA number may be lower (ie better) but comparing TAA aircraft the Cirrus average is comparable to similar types.

The problem with a forced landing is having elected to force land its likely to be much lower before the pilot realizes its all going pear shaped ie probably in the last few hundred feet.
From that I can understand your SOP for chute use in an engine failure! as that decision needs to be made early!
Having said that I am pretty sure fatalities in a controlled forced landing where flight is maintained are very very low

I do not have any idea of the actual numbers of successful forced landings v fatal forced landings but I do know in forced landings a % make a fatal mistake, maybe this is 5% maybe it is 20% that die, and I guess it depends on a load of factors including type, experience, weather, luck etc.

For me the added factor that makes my SOP is that the Cirrus for example is far worse to contemplate an off airfield landing due to its higher stall speed and therefore landing speed plus the small wheels do not make the prospect very good compared to say a C172 or C182, PA28, Robin etc I think you would have a better chance of survival and putting it in a reasonable field in these types.

So for me I do not want to get to 300 ft and think I have cocked it up with a perfectly good chute stowed away.

If I carry passengers I remind myself even more to not get tempted into a forced landing if the need arises and I hope in the heat of the moment I remember what I preach in good time.

Pace

19th Oct 2012, 20:57

007

But with the chute you have another option another decision to make?
Take off !!! climbing out 300 feet the engine goes bang. Push the nose over looking for a landing site ahead. Do I pull the chute do I force land ? decisions, decisions, decisions! Remember that is the most likely height and condition to get an engine failure.
Stall speed is irrelevant! Do not stall.Quite simple really!Taking out a hedge will not kill you! Avoiding a brick building or tree no sweat if you have control of the aircraft :E

As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace

007helicopter

20th Oct 2012, 16:16

Pace I am worried, I am not sure if you are reading my posts !!

Agreed EFATO is a high risk time, current thinking for formal Cirrus training is below 500ft aim for whatever ahead, above 500ft use the Chute, I personally as do many others as part of take off SOP at 500ft say out loud "Flaps & Caps" which I raise the flaps and then put my hand right on the CAPS handle to remind me it is active and double check the Pin out.

300ft EFATO would be a bad time to pull the chute, better see what options are straight ahead and fly it to the ground IMHO and SOP.

007helicopter

20th Oct 2012, 16:23

As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace

I agree, why on earth do not more manufacturers fit the BRS Chute, I assume cost to modify the airframe?

Cirrus had the advantage of designing from scratch but no mean feat to design an aircraft, bring it to market and sell 1000's, kudos to Alan and Dale Klapmeir who I have had the privilege of meeting, in my opinion they did to GA what Steve Jobs did to phones.

Columbia looks a decent aircraft but sold low 100's where Cirrus sold medium 1000's, you think if they had fitted a BRS and bought it in at a similar price then there could be some healthy competition for Cirrus, in my mind there is Zero serious competition for Cirrus at present.

mad_jock

20th Oct 2012, 22:06

I agree, why on earth do not more manufacturers fit the BRS Chute, I assume cost to modify the airframe

Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.

And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.

I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.

If some talent limited pilots think its worth it crack on and fly with it but don't subject the rest of us to paying for that crap.

My personal risk assement for me is it doesn't reduce my risk to be worth it. In fact a bottle of diet coke on board would increase my flight safety more than a chute.

BabyBear

20th Oct 2012, 22:41

Now then MJ, how would those comments pan out over the Alps, or maybe more appropriately the Grampians, or Cairngorms?

BB

Contacttower

20th Oct 2012, 22:42

Stall speed is irrelevant!

Well I think what 007 meant was that with a higher stall speed you will come in faster to a field during a forced landing and therefore be more likely to hit something...a C182 with full flap will stop in a less than 200 meters on rough grass and one can maintain control down to ~45kts with full flap just before landing. In a Cirrus in the same forced landing scenario one would be steaming in still at 60kts+ which makes a big difference to how small a space one can fit into.

My personal risk assement for me is it doesn't reduce my risk to be worth it. In fact a bottle of diet coke on board would increase my flight safety more than a chute.

Depends on the mission profile surely?

If you do mainly day VMC flying over flat terrain then yes the chute is not going to reduce the risk that much but compare two single engine aircraft with the same pilot but now doing regular night flying and/or low ceilings IFR over bad terrain and I think the chute significantly reduces the risk of death.

mad_jock

20th Oct 2012, 22:57

No the bottle of diet coke will win every time.

If the risk factor gets that high I won't be doing it in a SEP.

I used to fly reguarly over the Cairngorms IFR in a single and in the winds which we up north consider normal but some would consider excessive.

Diet coke or a twin please.

Alps I don't fly over in my 2000shp 7 ton or 3300 shp 10 ton tp because its not safe due drift down.

Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.

But yet again I would hope I am resonably comfy in cloud not likely to **** myself when I hear the cloud base is at 700 ft and can actually fly a manual aircraft in trim and a straight line.

BabyBear

20th Oct 2012, 23:09

Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.

Where would you ditch over the Cairngorms?

How can you be so sure you would die with a chute?

BB

mad_jock

20th Oct 2012, 23:15

Because I have walked the cairngorms since I was 5 and flown over them for the last 12 years. Doesn'tt matter what the let down is your in the hands of god if you can't see where your going. It can be straight into a cliff, straight into a boulder or a soft splodge into a lump of peat.

Tons of Lochs to ditch into around the edges. But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.

http://www.jbutler.org.uk/Scotland/Cairngorms/cairngorms.gif
http://www.jbutler.org.uk/images/Cairngorms/94411.jpg

Pace

21st Oct 2012, 08:03

Stall speed is irrelevant!

Contact I believe most forced landing fatalities occur through pilots stalling in not through controlled flight and hitting something.
In that sense stall speed is irrelevant ie DO NOT STALL. There is no excuse witrh a properly trained pilot to stall.
Even if you land faster with a higher stall speed it is very unlikely you will kill yourself taking out a hedge or two ;) Ask me as I have had one self induced landing into a field 25 years ago.
Just through interest does anyone have the forced landing fatality figures which do not include stall/spins.
I remember seeing them somehwere and am sure the fatality in controlled forced landings was very very low. Stalling another matter but thats bad piloting

Pace

007helicopter

21st Oct 2012, 10:10

Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.

And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.

Around 85 lbs is not exactly a "huge weight penalty"

WTF is the bottle of coke thing?

007helicopter

21st Oct 2012, 10:15

Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.

What a load of garbage, some forced landings would survive and plenty of Chute pulls would have a very good chance of survival as they have done in other mountain areas.

Sure there is a much higher risk of failure than flat lands.

Ditching in a Loch, MJ what would you rate your % chances of survival of you and you passengers in that situation?

Romeo Tango

21st Oct 2012, 10:31

Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.

And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.

I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.

Agreed

If you really don't want to die take more exercise and eat less ice cream.

Fuji Abound

21st Oct 2012, 10:48

But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.

MJ - surely you are kidding, that is bread and butter in a Husky, I've landed in far less appealing scenery than that picture.

mad_jock

21st Oct 2012, 11:13

Survival chances a damn sight better than landing on a scree slope or any of the granite flats with there layered rock strata.

And in there in general isn't much wave action in scottish lochs and the wind tends to be channeled along them so into wind you would have next to nothing ground speed and if you could drop it next to the shore and keep your phone dry it would be better than rock landing. Also stalling it into the pine trees is also discussed extensively as another method.

The water temp would be a significant factor but then anywhere in the scottish mountains the crash is only the first thing to survive.

And actually I have never taken pax across the cairngorms unless in a twin. I have taken other pilots who know the risks but not some clueless punter. Same with water crossings to the islands.

But in general in the highlands its not the locals who crash and its not engine failures and the like its usually pilot error and CFIT in IMC.

Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.

And if you had actually walked the hills and flown over them you would know where I was coming from with the likely outcome of a forced landing in them. Those of us that do fly them have our points dotted about that we think we could get in, the rest of it you have to accept your dead unless luck gives you a joker. If your not will to accept that you shouldn't be flying in the area.

We actually have quite a good safety record up north, there is alot more GA flying than you might think. Very active microlight communities and loads of gliding and spam cans as well. I would like to think that the safety record is more to do with the average standard of pilot and there ability to say sod it when the risk factor gets to high. If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.

All the chute does is treat the symptom it doesn't cure the desease.

And the two ltr bottle of diet coke can be used to either replace fluids or remove them thus either stopping dehydration or removing the distraction of bursting for a pee on approach/landing which is where most accidents happen.

you would think so but the pic doesn;t show what the normal relief is. Its either strata granite which has weathured cracks which then rut and you have steps every 2 meters or so. There is also loads of mostly scandanavian grantie lumps which have been dropped out when the ice melted. Then you get the peat areas which again have muliple steps and for ever changing water runs so even the bottom of the U shapes arn't that good.

Unless you have actually walked them it looks pretty decent from the air but lower down its pretty bloody horrible to be honest unless your in a helicopter and they don't land very often and winch instead.

007helicopter

21st Oct 2012, 11:24

Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.

Yes Pilot error is the biggest cause of fatalities, we can agree on that.

Agreed, Approach and landing has also a high risk area where Pilot error accounts for a lot of mistakes but this is an area the chute is least effective, due to low or no altitude.

If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.

I am all for more training personally but the declining industry can not stand higher training costs or more regulation, accidents will continue to happen at roughly the same per 100, 000 hours chute or not.

mad_jock

21st Oct 2012, 11:39

I am all for more training personally but the declining industry can not stand higher training costs or more regulation

The thing is that most of the training thats really required isn't in the air. Its more attitude (of the mind) training and PIC skills training.

Now to be honest most of the posters that are very pro the chute on here are the pilots that least need it.

You think about what you are doing, you plan your flights and you hopefully don't let the aircraft go anywhere that you mind hasn't been before 10 mins ago. You also engage other pilots in discussion. You also read accident reports and look at the statistics of where the danger areas are. And realise your not that current and you have limitations. Appart from the fact your license says PPL on it you are thinking and flying like a pro pilot.

The CAA safety meetings in the UK do start down this road but again the pilots that go to them arn't the ones that need it in general.

And as much as myself and a few others argue with your point of view, I for one have alot of respect for your point of view even if I might not agree with the premise of the chute as a get out of jail free card for incompetence.

And just to note for me an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard gives me way way more options that I will use nearly every trip that a handle wouldn't.

Pace

22nd Oct 2012, 07:30

MJ

PPLs are a mixed bag! some are excellent some are awful some lie somewhere inbetween.
Yet aircraft accidents are so final and tragic events for the occupants when something does go wrong.
The Chute does add a lifesaving option that is not in dispute with me!
Seeing the video promoting the chute above I noted that a fair few chute pulls were in icing or loss of control in cloud and failure to recover.
Both are areas these pilots should not have been ie out of the pilot or aircraft limits! Whether they were lacking currency or held ratings maybe they should not hold is irrelevant! They should not have been there.
That makes me question the false security the chute gives luring pilots into situations they cannot handle.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying at night in a SEP but know in my heart that I would feel a lot more comfortable doing so with a chuted aircraft!
So we have to be cautious that the chute does not create the very accidents it saves purely by being there.
The rest other than mid airs or pilot incapacitation should be more to do with training but we are still faced with the fact that the chute is a major addition to safety. If used correctly it is a wonderful thing to have.
Reading an accident like this one it beggars belief that such an incompetent pilot should be flying in those conditions but they do!
The Chute saved the fool from himself and hopefully may make him reappraise himself and learn from it.
As such I support the use of the chute but still have reservations on when it should be used and the fact that you have it should not tempt you into anything you would not do in a conventional aircraft without a get out of jail for free card.

Pace

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 08:16

I don't disagree with any of that.

And pretty much my view.

But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.

BabyBear

22nd Oct 2012, 09:26

All interesting views and points and I can't fault your thinking MJ.

However, given you are of the opinion that

But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.

and you were flying a Cirrus over the Cairngorms do you think you could resist pulling the handle when you know the terrain is as you describe and you believe you are stuffed?

BB

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 09:51

To be honest if I was VFR I wouldn't be high enough for it to work.

IFR I would be at FL100 and be having a bloody good shot at gliding clear to either Deeside or Speyside. Mainly because if you did survive the crash the emergency services could get to you.

Pace

22nd Oct 2012, 09:52

But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.

MJ

For pilots like you and maybe me we are unlikely to loose it in cloud or if we do not recover.
We probably know enough about icing not to push into icing we cannot loose with a short descent.

With an engine failure in most cases we would force land but over your lovely rugged mountains I would probably pull the chute.

I would pull the chute at night but then question whether I should be there and probably would not if the chute was not there.

The main reasons especially as you get older is the known fact that if anything happens to you your passengers well briefed have a good chance of survival.
The fact that you have a chute will probably encourage more of your chums to risk life and limb flying with you anyway :ok:
I read one successful chute pull where the pilot suffered a stroke on his own and came to long enough to pull the chute.

Should it be used as a cure all for every situation even when the aircraft is perfectly flyable??
My guess is something is wrong with training, examination, currency, ability etc!
Reading others here I have probably changed my mind and now accept that there are a bunch of not up to it pilots in the mix (as well as good ones)
If your a good one decide when and in what circumstances you will resort to the chute the rest ??? Go for the chute as a SOP as you are better alive than dead.

Pace

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 10:04

You see with that extra 55ltrs of fuel I would have absouletly no reason to be over the cairngorms in horrible conditions I would be up the east coast with loads of options.

Fuji Abound

22nd Oct 2012, 11:30

You see with that extra 55ltrs of fuel I would have absouletly no reason to be over the cairngorms in horrible conditions I would be up the east coast with loads of options.

MJ - on a serious point that is not always possible.

For example you may want to do a trip to the CIs or any other longer sea passage. Climbing high enough to glide to land may not be possible. Yes, of course you could refuse the trip without an extra engine, but then again not everyone has that luxury. Your assessment is that an engine failure is highly unlikely. However you might well take comfort from the chute subject to your assessment of the pros and cons of a water based landing with or without the chute. Unfortunately all the extra fuel in the world is not a substitute nor whatever more advanced skills it is that the pilot may possess.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 12:10

Yep but look at the accident statistics and see where the real fatal dangers lies.

CI by far the most likely screwing up with your plans is that the viz will drop. This morning RVR was down to 50m I believe. That extra 55ltrs will get you way way past the coast and into France or back to the UK. Or you could use it to reduce your exposure to risk by taking a shorter crossing and running down the French coast. Which with the speed of the cirrus won't actually add that much extra sector time on if your coming from east of SOU.

However you might well take comfort from the chute

Well that pretty much is the only thing it will give most people. Compared to having an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard and the amount of risk that it reduces by having it.

Go to AAIB Air Accidents Investigation: Publications & Search Reports (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm)

And do a search over the last 30 years for "fatal" for GA aircraft.

Your kidding yourself if you think the chute is going to give you anything more than a natscock benefit.

As another poster said stop eating pies and icecream and you will reduce your risk more than having a chute.

Fuji Abound

22nd Oct 2012, 12:23

MJ - the CIs was only an example of longer sea crossings which are well within the capability of the Cirrus with generous fuel reserves but where the chute provides an improved chance of surviving a ditching in the event of an engine failure. There are simply times however you cut it where you simply cant get from A to B and remain in glide distance of either A or B or achieve the same by routing some other way.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 12:35

I know that been to Vargar enough times in the twin with points of no return and the works.

If your daft enough to do that sort of crossing in a single in atlantic or north sea waters the least of your worries is having a chute or not and surviving the landing. If you get out afterwards its going to give you an extra 6 mins of life unless you have a survival suit on and a life raft.

If you are even attempting such trips for ****s and giggles and not a pre planned ferry your PIC skills are severely compromised that having a chute aint going to reduce the risk factor. In fact why don't you ask a ferry pilot for a north atlantic crossing if they would prefer an extra 55ltrs on board or a chute. Lets face it if they did want one and thought it would do any good they be wearing one anyway. And from what I have seen of them departing west they hammer as much fuel as possible inside and give the middle finger to the MTOW.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 13:02

Big Pistons Forever

22nd Oct 2012, 16:24

I think it is unfortunate that virtually every thread that deals with Cirrus aircraft eventually ends up in circular arguments about whether the CAPs encourages risk taking and an implied certainty that "real" pilots don't need a parachute.

The CAP's is a capability like all other aspects of the aircraft. The folks that do the hard thinking about the when and why of how they will utilize the capability are also the ones least likely to use it.

The Muppets who couldn't be bothered to research the considerable amount of advice and opinion available through COPA and other sources, self brief their SOP, practice deployment scenarios etc etc are the ones most likely to need the capability and most likely to not use/miss use it.

In other words it is just like every other part of GA. The Muppet quotient is IMO about the same in Cirrus pilots as it is in Bonanza/Commanche/C210/Lance/Robin etc etc pilots.

The choice for me is easy. The CAPs does not sufficently ameliorate the risk of flying a single engine aircraft at night or over water or unlandable terrain. Therefor I only do those trips in multi engine aircraft. However like MJ I have much more experience then most GA pilots because I fly for a living. I also have regular training in Multi engine aircraft emergencies. The bottom line is unless you have comparable experience I think my personal opinion on using CAPs is irrelevent to your particular situation.

What is important is that if you fly a CIrrus aircraft that you do the research into what it can and can't do for you and come up with some personal SOP's that you can use to help make the hard choice when the bad thing happens and the pressure is on......

Contacttower

22nd Oct 2012, 16:24

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Well it's not as if they really take the energy if you ditch conventionally either...

There have been several instances where CAPS have been deployed over water with successful outcomes; the only which wasn't was at very low altitude.

For a fixed gear aircraft if I had a chute I would pull it every time if I had to ditch, I know from having flown seaplanes just how likely the gear is likely to flip you over and I'd much rather maybe have a back injury and pretty much guarantee landing the right way up than run the risk of being upside down.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 17:05

It is a weighing up of risk factors and what is likely to happen and what is not likely to happen.

You pay a premium for having a CAPS.

Now would the investment of that premium in other things negate more risk than investing it in CAPS? Say flying weekly instead of monthly.

To me and I suspect a few others an extra 55ltrs of fuel is more useful than the very remote possibilty of an engine failure. Again the same for flying over terrian which diverts need to planned sometimes hours in advance if the fuel is getting used not as predicted. Hell even sitting in the hold is preferable and getting where you actually want to go.

Now having my fair share of Spinnaker cockups in yachts in British waters I would love to see what happens when a chute plane goes in with even 10 knts of wind. I have seen mil drops go in the drink with chutes attached and they wern't floating, highly amusing, lots of swearing. Thats why they throw rafts out without chutes when dropping to stranded sailors.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 18:56

My guess is something is wrong with training, examination, currency, ability etc!
Reading others here I have probably changed my mind and now accept that there are a bunch of not up to it pilots in the mix (as well as good ones)
If your a good one decide when and in what circumstances you will resort to the chute the rest ??? Go for the chute as a SOP as you are better alive than dead.

Pace, this argument is the "Real Pilots Do Not need a Chute" and those that are "not up for it" or make it SOP off airport are "Not a good Pilot"

It also shows a certain Macho attitude on your side, taking hedges out and stuff and being ok and can therefore probably do it again, I just personally think that is also quite a dangerous attitude.

I respect whatever you wish to make your SOP as and when you have the option of the chute, you seem to have great difficulty in accepting what someone else decides is correct for them as being a reasonable decision and that it makes them somehow one of the bunch of not up to it Pilots:=

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 19:17

In fact come to think of it hitting water straight down on a chute.

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Flat wing and body onto a incompressable fluid it will be like hitting concrete.

All those bits of rope about which you can't cut even if your spine isn't shattered and you have gone from being 6ft tall down to 4 ft.

So more than likely I reckon you will be stuck inside the thing as well as having multiple bone issues through having a huge G forces applied which will proberly break your neck anyway.

Yep another huge risk reduction that one.

MJ I know you are never known to exaggerate, but I think you are getting slightly carried away here, any ditching is going to be a risky business but so far all have survived various Cirrus BRS Ditchings, the last one was a Father and Daughter with Engine failure who were totally uninjured and pulled at 2000ft.

One guy near NYC did have a back injury but was still able to swim to the shore unaided and was fully recovered within 6 months, pretty much certain in that case he would have been dead without the BRS.

In terms of 10 knots, believe me it would be fine, I do accept at 30 knots plus it is going to a factor and a much higher risk.

Pace

22nd Oct 2012, 19:18

007

Nothing macho about it at all and those comments were not directed at you!
The fact is I would not in all situations pull the chute when I have a fully serviceable aircraft albeit without an engine :E in my hands!
In most circumstances I would use the skills I was taught to use and force land not pull the chute.
If as Cirrus recommend a forcelanding is unadvisable due terrain or up in MJ land I would pull the chute.
But remember the start of the thread was about a so called instrument pilot who was unable to fly a basic procedure like flying a runway heading and then looses it in what should have been a standard rate turn.
I question some pilots not being up to it? This Guy was not does that make me macho ? If so proud to be Macho

Pace

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 19:26

To me and I suspect a few others an extra 55ltrs of fuel is more useful than the very remote possibilty of an engine failure. Again the same for flying over terrian which diverts need to planned sometimes hours in advance if the fuel is getting used not as predicted. Hell even sitting in the hold is preferable and getting where you actually want to go.

Except the few other 5000 people who bought a Cirrus may beg to differ, outsold Cessna, Piper and equivelant's put together I would guess.

Whats the big deal on the 55ltr of fuel you are banging on about so much. The Cirrus has around 5 hours endurance depending on what Model that can take you 800nm plus, more than enough for most PPL's to plan their route with ample fuel to spare.

Having done many 4+ hour legs to be honest that is enough for me.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 19:38

The fact is I would not in all situations pull the chute when I have a fully serviceable aircraft albeit without an engine

That's probably where we differ most in opinion because I see no engine means uncertainty of landing area, you see no engine and are very confident (I might argue over confident) in your ability to in the heat of battle select a good field, arrive at a good field, and land successfully in a good field.

But remember the start of the thread was about a so called instrument pilot who was unable to fly a basic procedure like flying a runway heading and then looses it in what should have been a standard rate turn.

Yep can not argue with that, well ok just a bit.

We were not there, but we heard his account first hand, it sounds as you describe but lets be honest the system means you can get an IR never having flown in IMC, the system means you can have 6 approaches in 6 months and be legally current, yes this guy lost it on approach, he was not prepared, lost concentration, got overwhelmed, got distracted, got disorientated, did not feel well, whatever we do not know. I bet the same could happen to all sorts of guys on this site and in the wrong set of circumstances me included.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 19:38

30 knts plus is normal in scotland and classed as a summer breeze in Shetland. You really don't want to see what its like when its a bit of a gale.

I think you should all have a look at the AAIB reports and see what you can really do to lower your risk exposure.

For a start if you don't do aero's you have cut a huge chunk out.

If you somehow mange to work out a way of getting to above 1000ft without actually taking off you would sort out another huge chunk.

Arranging that nobody else flys within 50 miles of you or the airport your landing at would account for another chunk. Or only fly in cloud.

Most of whats left is CFIT pilot error.

Less than 3% of the fatal accidents in the last 20 years would a CAP be of any use.

Personally I think the CAPS will be a bit of a fad which when there is no significant change in the accident rates or fatallity rates will eventually fall out of fashion. I would have thought we would have seen something by now if it was having an effect but the rates are very similar to 30-40 year old spam cans.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 19:49

You pay a premium for having a CAPS.

Now would the investment of that premium in other things negate more risk than investing it in CAPS? Say flying weekly instead of monthly.

Not much of a premium in terms of the total cost of ownership, cheaper than smoking, and heck it has a 10 year maintenance free life , break it down over that period of time and to me it is about the best innovation in an industry that other than GPS was basically stagnant in terms of innovation for 4 seat SEP.

The fuel, weight, cost argument is BS and the market has proven that.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 19:54

Good marketing for sales I will give you that. Realistically improving safety its really hasn't done anything significant apart from a few people giving interviews how they cheated death.

Actually stopping smoking would do more to reduce your risk flying than having a CAPS.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 19:55

If so proud to be Macho

Maybe we could have a Proud to be Macho Aviators Parade day, you and MJ could be on a float together:E

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 20:01

Nah it would be the competent pilots float and would have a well stocked bar on it

The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock.

Our float would have a basic first aid kit which would only be opened as a last resort preferably by peeling the seal off so you could stick it back on again. The driver would avoid pot holes and take a suitable route to minimise the risk of anyone falling off.

:p

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 20:03

The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock.

:D bloody marvellous, good one MJ

DeltaV

22nd Oct 2012, 20:07

As a matter of interest does anyone know the glide ratio of a Cirrus? I couldn't find it in a quick look on the manufacturer's site.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 20:17

Best Glide Speed @ 3400 lb = 88 Knots IAS
Maximum Glide Ratio 9.6 : 1 so at 10,000ft AGL is 16 miles best glide

Which at that altitude does give you quite a lot of options for nearest airport or an off airfield site if that is your thing.

Pace

22nd Oct 2012, 20:18

As a matter of interest does anyone know the glide ratio of a Cirrus? I couldn't find it in a quick look on the manufacturer's site.

They dont glide them! Pull the chute for any situation which requires a glide and go vertical :ok:
007 only joking in a nice way;) I have moved a long way on using the chute!
Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes

Pace

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 20:22

Or from 2000ft around 3 miles to glide to the scene of the crash, if in doubt use the chute:ok:

Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes

If nothing else it would sure get the attention of the fire crew.

007helicopter

22nd Oct 2012, 20:25

007 only joking in a nice way

Now don't go getting all over sensitive

I think we better call this informative and highly factual debate to an end, I want to quit while I am clearly winning the argument.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 20:49

Whats wrong with 2k at 3 for a normal approach? ;)

Aye right, still want my diet coke instead.

DeltaV

22nd Oct 2012, 20:58

9.6:1? I imagined it might be better than that probably because it looks quite slippery. I was prompted in this from MJ's talk of flying over the Cairngoms or, as we pedants prefer, the Grampians which I've been over many times myself. There's one bit where not much presents as a get-out but generally a valley offers a route to lower ground, but of course glide ratio counts.

VMC-on-top

22nd Oct 2012, 21:15

007 - before you head off, just watched that COPA lecture. It makes some pretty compelling and persuasive arguments for the chute - and for the avoidance of doubt - I'm an a great advocate of it.

As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk?

MJ - you really are hard work, aren't you? This twaddle about having an additional 55 litres of fuel giving you a safer option than a chute? I mean, as if you are going to arrive at the same point with an "additional" 55 litres more in your 182(?) than you would do in a Cirrus? Nonsense! You plan your flight exactly the same way, reserves included. You are surely not trying to convince us that because you aren't carrying a chute, you always have an additional 55 litres on fuel on board at all times?

Everyone falls into to the either for or against camp when it comes to the chute. I personally, am in favour. To those of you that think you are so experienced etc. etc. that you are infallible to making any mistakes, incurring any technical or physical difficulties etc, I think you are kidding yourselves.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 21:40

No I am just a pilot that has done alot of routes with min IFR fuel onboard and to me any extra fuel means extra in the hold multiple diversion options and a distinct reduction in bum twitching.

Never felt the need for a chute yet. Glad I have had extra fuel onboard weekly and I suspect daily in the not so distant future with winter coming and runway de-icing becoming a factor.

Carrying fuel burns fuel just as carrying any other dead weight.

O have you seen whats going to hit on friday in the UK?

Now that is a major ballache on the horizon.

And I say again look at the accident reports you are reducing your risk by a miniscule amount.

Fuji Abound

22nd Oct 2012, 21:40

The chute and the fuel are in fact both energy management devices. Simples really.

The fuel gives you the energy to go further, the chute gives you the ability to dissipate all the energy you don't want really quickly.

When we sail, get utterly exhausted after a pounding and have had enough of surfacing down 40 foot waves (been there, done it, really) we chuck the chute over the stern ( and we might even chuck it over the bow these days) because it absorbs all that horribly energy and restores tranquility. I give the analogy because MJ mentioned sailing.

So I still like the idea of being able to change energy in to speed and distance but because I am a wimp I like the idea of being able to dump the energy really quickly when its too much for me, because the most precious thing fly aeros has taught me is life is all about energy management. Always be the master of the energy and you will be safe, let energy become your master and you are dead.

Yep, great discussion, thank you, thanks MJ and Pace for mixing it up and challenging the ideas and I am sure we will come back to this one but its probably come full circle for me after however many pages.

mad_jock

22nd Oct 2012, 21:46

Nicely put.

Just in my experence its been so rare its never happened to me that I have wanted to dump all the energy. Now wanting to go further or have the option because it opens up more escape routes....... yep thats the one for me.

Contacttower

23rd Oct 2012, 07:39

I agree MJ the overall risk reduction of the chute is probably not particularly high for a competent and current pilot because as you point out most accidents are caused by some sort of human error/failure of judgement. Also there are few accidents caused by truly insurmountable mechanical failures and many caused by the mismanagement of those failures...the Cirrus at Zurich a few years ago springs to mind for example... (where ironically had they just pulled the chute from the outset they would have looked very silly but probably the pilot would have lived nonetheless)

However there are a few CAPS deployments on the now famous Cirrus list that stand out for me and make me think that for what is actually quite a small penalty in terms of weight (in fact I don't really think it is at all in the real world as the Cirrus W&B compares reasonably well with it's competitors) if I were buying an aircraft tomorrow and were thinking of getting a fast single the CAPS would be a big pro for the Cirrus.

The chute deployment instances like the broken aileron, the guy who had a seizure or the engine failure over water demonstrate the apart from saving people from themselves the chute can be very good at saving those very rare instances that despite being very unlikely...do happen. It may not add that much overall safety, but it's another layer of safety on top of currency, good training etc that one day one might just be glad of.

I also find it strange that Cirrus pilot's come in for criticism in the area of training. As a manufacturer Cirrus probably takes more interest in the training of the people who fly them than any other. The standardised course is a very good idea and the Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association is probably more active in the role of dissemination of advice and acting as a forum for ideas than any other association for a light single. Unfortunately they can't force everyone to take part in it...

Pace

23rd Oct 2012, 08:07

Contact Tower

For me the biggest plus for the chute is the passengers. PPLs do vary a lot in their abilities and currency.
A failure in a single pilot either because he becomes ill or gets into more than he can handle means the pilot and passengers have a way of getting out of the situation.
Not only can the pilot pull the chute but also the passengers which means that they have control over their destiny too.

Looking at the video it is plain to see that the chute has encouraged pilots into situations where they are out of their depth. A lot of chute pulls have been loss of control in IMC or Icing pilots being where they are not competant to be as in this case.

A get out of jail for free card. That needs to be looked at in more detail and may account for the no better than average safety stats.

I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures.
I would certainly not use it above a city where I could glide clear or over flat greenfields or where surface winds are above 10 kts!
I would only use it for engine failure where there was no suitable landing spot. Over dense forest or mountains!

But yes the way to go for PPL SEP flying but with some cautions and caveats and certainly NOT a replacement for solid piloting skills.

One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it.
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision

Pace

007helicopter

23rd Oct 2012, 17:05

As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk?

VMC-on-top I personally see flying at night and over inhospitable terrain as a much greater risk for dozens of reasons.

I do not do much night flying and to be honest I am not current.

I do quite often fly over very inhospitable terrain on my travels and there is still a significant risk with the chute in this environment which can only be worse at night, at least in day you may be able to glide to a better area to deploy and have a chance of being found by SAR.

007helicopter

23rd Oct 2012, 17:22

I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures.

Not all engine failure, Overhead Manston I might be tempted :E

Seriously I accept totally this SOP is not right for everyone but with my SOP I think I have a pretty reasonable chance of survival, or probably a much better than average chance of survival. However straight forward engine failure is not the main threat.

One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it.
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision

Actually another reason mine is pretty much black and white, the decision is made before I take off.

Pace

23rd Oct 2012, 22:50

However straight forward engine failure is not the main threat.

What is the main threat? The pilot!!!

Pace

mad_jock

23rd Oct 2012, 23:26

:D they won't want to hear that Pace.

It doesn't matter what techno gadgets you fit on an aircraft it will always boil down to that fact.

You can throw 100's of thousands if not millions at a airframe you won't change the statistics at all, its all dependent on the person flying it.

It's actually quite amusing.

Just had a discussion tonight why I won't fly Air France with a frog. They couldn't understand the difference that BA have a fleet of auld ****e haulers but I would be happy to fly with them because of the folk at the front but I wouldn't be happy to fly with the newer AF fleet because of the issues they have with the crew standards.

Contacttower

24th Oct 2012, 07:51

You can throw 100's of thousands if not millions at a airframe you won't change the statistics at all, its all dependent on the person flying it.

Not sure I entirely agree, although I do for the most part...if that makes sense...

Fundamentally the crew are always the most effective way to improve safety however I do believe that safety can be improved at the margin by improvement in technology. GPWS, glass cockpits, better autopilots and now innovations like synthetic vision make a single pilot operation less stressful from the flying point of view, giving one more time to think strategically and making mistakes less likely. This should translate into more safety...and on the whole for a competent pilot I believe it does.

The problem is that, like with the chute, the benefits are obscured by the wider issue of the general poor safety record in GA because of human factors/incompetence/stupidity call it what you will...

It doesn't make those hardware improvements redundant though, and doesn't mean that for a competent pilot the chute does not have a role to play in situations were the problem is insurmountable or the conventional landing option has a poor chance of success.

007helicopter

24th Oct 2012, 08:18

What is the main threat? The pilot!!!

Yep that is true.

No one forces them to launch into xyz weather, terrain, or make a journey, it is down to PIC decision making.

Arguments about new technology, training, marketing, all have valid pro's and con's but at the end of the day PIC is responsible for the conduct of that flight.

Maybe one way of looking at it, take a Pilot like me, and a Pilot like Pace. We have different levels of experience but given the choice ( I Think) would both prefer access to a modern aircraft, call it a SR22 with a BRS Chute. We have a different outlook on when and why to use it. The aircraft is equipped with Modern avionics.

Are we any safer than in a PA28 with steam gaugues? maybe marginally.

Are we more likely to kill our selves in one type or another? probably not.

Is my or his SOP for forced landings that big a deal in actual life expectancy ? probably not.

So from what I have read while we both have a different outlook and level of training we are both likely relatively safe with our SOP.

Take a poorly trained, poor decision maker, big risk taker, not very experienced Pilot and put them in either aircraft and on average I am guessing they would have a similar chance of killing themselves in either aircraft.

So yes, in my opinion it is the Pilot.

Pace

24th Oct 2012, 09:56

007

I really do think not enough credence is given to the confidence factor of the chuted Cirrus and its roll in creating accident situations which it is a last resort for!
Lets look at a few scenarios.

Pilot X had heart problems becoming unwell in the street the fitting of stents and he eventually got his medical back but still in the back of his mind are the heart problems he suffered.
Is Pilot X more likely to feel comfortable flying a Cirrus with the knowledge that if he ever became unwell again he could pull the chute?

Pilot A always struggled with instrument flying and although passing the ratings struggled! Other pilots knew him as someone who was really not that confident.
Pilot A was using his aircraft for a business trip and it was an IMC day
He got the TAFS and the weather was due to drop around the time of his arrival.
Pilot A thought that all would be OK he would get in the destination airport before the weather closed down and he was forced to take an instrument approach which without his instructor he was not sure he would cope with.
He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute.

Pace is used to flying high performance multi engine aircraft at night and having had a number of piston engine failures had serious doubts over flying singles at night. While an engine failure at night was unlikely the thought was there. Pace had access to a Cirrus which now gave pace another option.
Unlikely engine failure on a dark night and pace could pull the chute.
Pace was now a lot more happy flying a single piston at night!

The list goes on but looking at that accident video it is apparent that the chute is luring pilots into situations that they or the aircraft cannot handle as it is seen as a get me out of prison for free card if all goes tits up.
I have no doubts about this ignored factor and its impact on accident statistics which I am sure would be far better for the aircraft.
Some will say that it is because pilots do not pull the chute. Of course not as another said what pilot will want to wreck his aircraft? Their priority will be to try and recover before resorting to the chute and maybe leaving it too late but the comfort factor should not be ignored.

007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much

Pace

Fuji Abound

24th Oct 2012, 10:54

Pace - I wasn't going to contribute again but honestly yours is a ridiculous argument. Of course some pilots might just about be stupid enough to rely on the chute, but you cant hold back developments such as this on the strength of your argument. I know more than a few pilots who would be really uncomfortable flying with a six pack they are so accustom to glass screens and all the extra help they provide, all sorts of changes in car engineering makes it much safer to be on the road .. .. .. so what is your point, lets not have chutes because they might encourage a few pilots to fly in conditions beyond their ability? I know plenty of instrument pilots that would find flying without an AI in IMC way beyond their ability - and its always been that way and probably always will, so do we outlaw AIs? In fact how many pilots would set off these days without an AI, but once upon a time no one had an AI in their aircraft. They hadn't been invented. No, we teach pilots new technology as well as we can, we encourage them to understand the risks and pitfalls, we explain the risks of over confidence and why you might want to still be able to fly the aircraft without a functioning AI but if they don't like the message or don't want to listen its called free will.

So I just don't understand your point - sorry.

What is it you want to do?

Ban chutes?

Teach pilots more of their possible shortcomings - well I think you will find almost all Cirrus pilots are a pretty well informed lot these days - some may have come to a different conclusion that you, but I would suggest that is their prerogative.

Legislate to ensure no one could argue they haven't been informed? It doesn't work! We inform smokers every day that it will kill you if you smoke, but they keep buying the packs. They actually pay to kill themselves. You can tell pilots till you are blue in the face dont rely on the chute - but some will. You can tell instrument pilots how important it is to keep current, to be able to fly on partial panel etc., but some will fly without being current and some will suffer become partial panel and lose control.

What is it you seek?

Pace

24th Oct 2012, 11:16

What is it you seek?

An informed discussion about all the pros and cons of what is a first from a major manufacturer.
I think you will find the fact that it is a first will generate a lot of discussion which is only natural!
When we start to move away from taught practice ie engine failure is it odd to you that that should not also be discussed.
As for the chute as I have posted I have shifted my opinion through discussions with people like you and 007.
I have also posted that I hope other manufacturers follow suit so hardly wanting to ban chutes infact the very opposite.
Fuji I hope it is fully discussed and not taken as an attack on Cirrus. Because there are important points to fully discuss.
Further the manufacturer has not given definative directions on its use for reasons you have stated so when and where to use the chute will be unofficial and open to personal interpretation hence more important that every angle is discussed.
007 with his pull on all engine failure policy had not considered winds and a possible 30mph plus forward impact.
Now he is aware of that it may add some further thought in his pull or not to pull decisions.
So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail???

Pace

Fuji Abound

24th Oct 2012, 12:48

So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail???

Of course not, nor is it for me to decide. I really don't mean to appear tetchy - but discuss whatever you will. In fact I have found the discussion really interesting.

My "concern" was the discussion doesn't become circular.

To be fair you have promoted the notion on numerous occasions that the chute might engender over confidence in some pilots - I don't think anyone disputes that is a possibility.

To be fair you have also promoted the idea that Cirrus should say more about the chute - we debated why they don't, and I cant see anyone has anything new or different to contribute.

I just dont see what you were seeking to achieve, or add to the debate, by giving some circumstances in which pilot's might be overly confident because of the chute - no one is disagreeing with you! On the assumption that much you accept, I assumed there was something else on your mind - but I cant understand what it could be?

That is why from my point of view unless anyone really has anything new to contribute I think the thread has run its course for now - but as I said above go round in circles as much as you like for all I care. ;)

execExpress

24th Oct 2012, 13:05

Pace:

It has been interesting to observe the fruits of much fine-detailed thinking and discussion that has been going on amongst Cirrus/BRS manufacturers/owners/pilots - for over ten years now- making its way to you via PPRUNE, 007 and effectively COPA.

I admire that you have been able to absorb new points, evolve your point of view and share sensible counter-points in the discussion (eg 30 knot surface winds) and grow your (and wider) appreciation for the safety value, subtleties and pitfalls presented by the existence of BRS through discussion.

You have an appetite to discuss even further detail, but I think you dissuade discussion of finer detail by simultaneously persisting with highly subjective propositions. E.g. "He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute."

If there are those who regard a chute pull as a no-consequences get out jail free 'easy out' reason to go flying where/when they should not their lack judgement (and imagination) is a very big risk to them, period. Perhaps any population has a small Darwinian element, whose behaviors (actual or perceived) tend to be given greater prominence in discussion than those of the vast majority who would gain value from discussion of points that they themselves can consider/control/influence.

Finer discussion on BRS would largely be about exploring more of the many grey areas in more depth than a quest for "Black and White" answers/POH content. Factors present in a real-life pull/no-pull circumstance are so many and varied and preclude the concrete 'circumstance proof' guidance that you seek.

Identifying, considering and incorporating (or not) those factors into "SOPS" is where each individual BRS pilot makes his own choice - even as to whether or not he/she chooses to explore/discuss them - and is where discussion threads like these can, I believe, contribute to participants safety (excepting another very small part of the population whose judgement and performance is so consistently high that they will, with no need of a BRS, either safely handle any circumstance which fate might send their way, or accept that fate if not able to effect a good outcome for whatever reason).

007helicopter

24th Oct 2012, 16:27

007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much

Pace I think in a rational sense there is merit to consider the scenarios you give and human nature is such that we factor in the pro's and cons of doing anything risky and make our decision, so yes in some way it expands the envelope of risk or comfort we are prepared to take.

For some it may just be to risky to fly a SEP without a chute, I now have flown nothing else (other than helicopters) for the last 4-5 years and for me I personally prefer the Cirrus I feel comfortable and confident in and am not sure how I would feel about going to a non BRS aircraft as a permanent option, it would feel like a backward step and in my mind increase my risk.

My partner would strongly agree and in many ways I feel partners and uninformed passengers think it is "ammazing and fantastic to have a chute" and they have an over optimistic view of its value but it certainly makes the uninformed feel much safer.

I am trying to think about my own situation and in the cold light of day, I would have to confess yes it does expand my risk taking, lets use IMC as an example, I am reasonably proficient but would not say great in IMC. I do value the Autopilot greatly for long journeys and times of high work load, I know I would not do many long journeys in a non auto pilot, non glass, non BRS equipped aircraft because I am use to these tools and I would now feel unsafe and partially naked without them.

If they fail me I train and practice and think I can do a reasonable job of getting back to the ground intact.

But yes, if I get over whelmed and can not cope with the conditions, then in reality that last resort is there, and to some degree even if only subconsciously it must effect my decision making.

Pace

26th Oct 2012, 08:48

007

I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you! I would use the chute more than I would have done when we discussed the chute originally and I hope you might not be quite so trigger happy with the chute as you were? I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions!
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?

Pace

Sillert,V.I.

26th Oct 2012, 09:02

"I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice.

Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet.

Pace

26th Oct 2012, 12:33

Not just below 500 feet the most likely point for an engine failure but in strong wind flying where you may deeply regret pulling the chute rather than using those strong winds to your advantage in a forced landing!
So yes if your not confident in forced landings practice them time and time again until you are.
The chute is a major safety development but not a replacement for lack of skills!
If as Fuji says I go round in circles so be it :E
Must practice my holding patterns :E

Pace

007helicopter

26th Oct 2012, 17:29

007

I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you!

Me to

I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions!
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?

Disagree, yes it is good practice, after the last Chute discussion I did some dead stick landings from directly overhead Rochester, EGTO at 2000ft, the first one might have made a mess of some houses if it had been real, the 2nd two were very good.

I suppose everyone would argue it is easy to arrive on the airfield from 2000ft directly overhead, but I think even that is not that easy to do everytime and not come up short, so it reinforced my limitations in this situation, but I will continue to practice, when you come down we can do a dozen.

"I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice.

Sillert I see your point but I think plenty without a chute are lousy at PFL's, how many time do they come up short and the instructor says, shall we have another go?

Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet.

very good point EFATO get the nose down, you wont be gliding for long but keep it flying is essential and aim for the most open spot seen.

At higher altitudes if you fully trim back it pretty much gives you best glide speed so you can then concentrate more on getting it started, looking for a landing spot, or deciding when to pull.