Cirrus Crash near Dubbo

[VH-XXX]

Lucky escape after their light plane crashed near Gilgandra | Aviation Inspector (http://www.aviationinspector.com/?p=11298)

Let the discussions begin on whether we would have pulled the chute handle versus landing in what looks like a perfectly good paddock near Dubbo!

From my experience, 95% of the terrain out there is suitable for an outlanding there.

VH-WYH

[Joker89]

Pull the handle, that's what's its there for.

I Don't think it's so easy to predict the firmness of a field from the air, although the pictures do indicate the ground was quite good once it was back on earth.

[peterc005]

We'll all end us paying for it eventually thru our insurance premiums. Pulling the chute on a Cirrus is not cheap.

The field looks great for a dead stick landing!

[Jabawocky]

I reckon have seen that machine before out there. Local Dubbo one?

And it is the SR22 with the TNIO550, they are the pick of the Cirrus fleet. :{

Waste of an airframe. Nothing Half a Million won't replace, fortunately the folk on board survived.

And another one.....how many in how many weeks. :sad:

[baswell]

I see the Air Traffic Safety Bureau is investigating again.

[Harry Cooper]

Let the discussions begin on whether we would have pulled the chute handle versus landing in what looks like a perfectly good paddock near Dubbo!

How about a discussion about why he didn't land at Gilgandra after he'd declared to ATC he was losing oil pressure some time before arriving overhead there. Would the same decision be made if he wasn't carrying a BRS chute.

[Capt Fathom]

There does seem to be some eagerness to fire off the chute.

It should be used as a last resort, ie. if you don't use it, you will die!

If you do elect to use the chute and it malfunctions, there is no coming back.

:uhoh:

[VH-XXX]

If you do elect to use the chute and it malfunctions, there is no coming back.

That's the bit that scares me. It would be my luck to pull the chute, have it wrap around the tail and end my passenger and my lives abruptly when it could have in all probability deadsticked in. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened either!

[Oracle1]

Clearly this guy didn't learn to fly in a 2 stroke drifter, and he's a local :confused:

Registration holder as of 27 August 2012
MAAS AVIATION PTY LTD
PO Box 332
DUBBO NSW 2830
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 27 August 2012
MAAS AVIATION PTY LTD
PO Box 332
DUBBO NSW 2830
AUSTRALIA

[Modesetter]

From the news report:

Both (occupants) had managed to crawl from the plane

?? You mean open the door and get out like normal?

[Jabawocky]

How about a discussion about why he didn't land at Gilgandra after he'd declared to ATC he was losing oil pressure

Harry

Do you know who was flying it? Or did you just here it unfold on the radio?

I would be interested in talking to those involved as to what caused the loss of oil. And get a data download from the engine monitor.

PM me with anything helpful.

[Frank Arouet]

Parachute instructor at Williamtown said to our course, "anyone who would jump out of a serviceable aircraft is mad.

The aircraft only becomes unserviceable after it has crashed". Same WO picked me up after a night jump out of a $hithook into Port Stevens and said I had confirmed his theory.

Gilgandra.... well I would have taken the most obvious and least dangerous course of action. As such I will give the benefit of the doubt to the pilot.

[baswell]

It would be my luck to pull the chute, have it wrap around the tail and end my passenger and my lives abruptly when it could have in all probability deadsticked in. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened either!
Doesn't that usually happen to aircraft already tumbling out of control? Don't know of any "straight and slowly descending" deployments that ended up that way.

Tough call, but I still rate the walking away chances higher with the chute. (Though not as high as a precautionary landing at a nearby ALA after you notice problems)

[Rich-Fine-Green]

News Flash: The Occupants are OK. They got to have breakfast with their Families this morning.

End of story...

Safe Flying out there.

[Zoomy]

?? You mean open the door and get out like normal?

Modesetter, Landing with the chute fully deployed is said to feel like falling off a 2 storey building. Its like the old mushroom parachutes, if you dont roll properly on landing you break legs. The undercarriage is designed to take some of the impact along with the honeycomb structure within the seats. I reckon the airbags would be as useful as big saggy ones on a bull, but there you go.


The only reason it has a chute is to increase sales. You can still glide the thing and land successfully, however like most aircraft if you do not maintain the correct attitude/speed, you will fall out of the sky like a stone.

As to whether they did the right thing by pulling the chute, look, at the end of the day they survived. Perhaps if they attempted a forced landing without the chute the result might be different. I may of done things differently but that doesn't mean they have done the wrong thing.

What will be more interesting is why the low oil pressure. Why did the ol 550 give up the ghost. We will have to wait and see for that.

[Howard Hughes]

If they had dead sticked the arcraft in and it ended up in the same state it is now, I reckon the insurance company might have asked "why didn't you pull the chute?:ooh:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't! ;)

[gaunty]

RFG, good to hear.

What they had bought was a Ballistic Recovery System that just happened to have a very nice aircraft attached.

Why people sometimes sacrifice their lives to save bending a hunk of metal has always escaped me.

If you need to, sure, pull the handle, go have brekkie with the family, which BTW is priceless.
The insurance company now owns the Aircraft and after breakfast, you then go order anothery. :D:ok:

I can hear the distant thunder of hooves already:E

[Jabawocky]

No Hooves gaunty,

But, the chute landing is not a soft fluffy drop into a bundle of pillows. It has risks too.

If you look at the choices of landing area in the photo, and assuming they were high enough to be in the cruise noticing an oil pressure problem, I would have thought that a landing in a dead flat field would have carried less risk.

Just a guess is all. One is uncontrolled, one is controlled.

[roundsounds]

I read a pilot report recently about the SR22 and its safety features, which are pretty impressive. The FCOM / POH cautions the crew regarding its use. It warns use may result in death or serious injury. Looking at the pics of the "landing site" it may have been a case of land the aircraft rather than deploy the chute. Maybe this case could be used in pilot conversion training once the investigation has been completed.

[Jack Ranga]

Modesetter, Landing with the chute fully deployed is said to feel like falling off a 2 storey building. Its like the old mushroom parachutes, if you dont roll properly on landing you break legs. The undercarriage is designed to take some of the impact along with the honeycomb structure within the seats. I reckon the airbags would be as useful as big saggy ones on a bull, but there you go.

I wonder if one bought an aircraft that cost say......$100,000:00 less than a Cirrus (because it didn't have a ballistic parachute thingy) and then spent that $100,000:00 on pilot training if the out come would have been any different?

Ways to spend the $100,000:00 on pilot training:

Learn to fly a glider
An aerobatics endorsement
All sorts of Flight Safety courses
A couple of Lycoming engine courses
Old mate in Omaha's engine course

Not second guessing the dood, wasn't there but maybe money could be better allocated than a ballistic parachute thingy (there but for the grace of God go I!!)

[gaunty]

Jaba mate, relieved to hear that.:rolleyes:

And yes the recovery system is no pussy cat, its a hard ball risk assesment isn't it.:8

And I'm only being slightly mischeivous here, but which of the below is which and/or which is the more better or least worst. Please assign relevant probabilities here.:E

One is uncontrolled, one is controlled

[Jack Ranga]

Triple, your link is a pain the arse by the way :ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Curious! Checked out a SR22 AFM Section 3 Emergency Procedures.

[Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft “departs controlled flight,” the CAPS must be deployed.

EDIT- removed lame comment.

[gaunty]

OZBUSDRIVER

Mate: Yup BRS was probably a cheaper fix to a spin problem than cost and time for the testing and design effort to actually provide the certification spin requirement.

It is even possible that it was not possible :sad: to get the target (impressive) performance with the aerodynamic fix required for a non BRS spin recovery.

Its always "on one hand we could ............. and then on the other hand" when certifying an aircraft.:{

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agreed Gaunty, a lot of ink dispensed by various aviation scribes regarding this means of gaining certification.

[VH-XXX]

Sorry Jack, it works for me. It's a nice picture.

I've heard figures of $100k for a repack being thrown around.

[gaunty]

OZ and others,

Questions for you.

Arbitrary numbers but reasonable for the purposes of the exercise.

Cirrus BRS model BRS equipped 200KTAS cruise, Stall 61KTS say $400,000

Cirrus SPIN model spin certified 160KTAS cruise, Stall 48KTS say $500,000

Which one do you buy ?

At what price would the SPIN model have to be to get your money.

[Jack Ranga]

Cirrus BRS model BRS equipped 200KTAS cruise, Stall 61KTS say $400,000

This model and spend $90,000:00 on an Instructor Rating, Advanced Aerobatic Course and Old mate in Omaha's Engine Course. :ok:

Triple, just lots of friggin' pop ups including one of those spanker casino sites :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Gaunty...I will bite, Chute = uncontrolled descent. Fly the friggin glider = controlled.

Of course that assumes you don't Fork it up! Refer Ranga's suggestion.

Looking at the paddocks...fly it in and land.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Never having flown one of 'those' beasties, one can only assume.....

Stall speed with flaps approx = 60 KIAS....
Approach speed in glide = 60 x 1.3 = 78 KIAS....

Therefore, possibility of 'hooning' over paddocks of dubious surfaces / rabbit holes, ditches, etc etc @ some 70MPH (Think car/Ute) with possibility of overturning / more damage = more injury due much smaller wheels, and one 1 wheel at the front end....

vs the perceived 'safer' let down via the 'chute.....

Unless you've read about and ascertained the 'chute results to be 'not always good', then maybe its not a 'bad' prospect...??

Yep. I've heard about the deceleration of the chute vs the ground....but then, I've not had the training nor the 'advice' re the 'chute ...

Just food for thought...:ouch:

[Ultralights]

dont forget, under that chute, your coming down at 1600 ft/min. or more, i would go the conventional landing option with a touchdown at 100 or less ft/min anyday over the cute option while in a 100% controllable aircraft/glider. over mountainous tiger country, different story, but out there, in my mind the chute would not have even been considered.

every summer, hundreds of glider pilots survive outlandings in just such paddocks...

after just doing an aero rating and AAC course at Red baron, forced landings are nothing to fear... every spin resulted in the engine stopping.. so forced landing practice, through to touchdown, is done regularly just in case the engine doesnt start again.
with proper training, a forced landing is no more a drama than steep turns, or stalling and recovering with less then 10ft height loss... inverted even..

on the plus side, the pilot lived, just decided to use another method of getting the aircraft down...

but the thought that the cirrus is certified with a spin recovery procedure that dictates the use of the chute is simply scary. :confused::ugh:

[Jabawocky]

If anyone knows the pilot, can I get connected somehow.

Thanks!

[gaunty]

I honestly don't know what I would do.

My instinct says pull the handle, my ego says go on you can glide it in.

Maybe instinct would win. :sad:

[CPT733]

I honestly don't know what I would do.

My instinct says pull the handle, my ego says go on you can glide it in.

Maybe instinct would win.


Agree'd

Till now(thankfully) i have never had a forced landing in a paddock although im still doing my CPL and have had quiet a bit of training in recent times with forced landings and PREC SEARCH to 100ft AGL and am quiet confident with it. I still dont think my instinct of deploying would bow down to the ego if i was to be in the same situation and obviously in the Cirrus.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Cirrus Spin Testing and BRS;

It was once put to me that the SR20/SR22 did in fact complete the entire spin testing envelope in order to meet the European Certification Standards. EASA and other Authorities were never going to allow a 'rubber stamp' waiver when it came to spin testing and recovery.

It was also put to me that the POH statement of activating the Ballistic Parachute in a spin etc. is there mainly to ass-cover for liability protection.

(BTW: The product liability insurance paid these days by Cessna, Cirrus Et-Al on every serial number, makes up a HUGE part of the cost of an aircraft).

Also, Insurance Companies apparently kinda like the idea that the Occupants almost always WALK away from a BRS deployment and there is almost always very little collateral damage on the ground (no swath of burning aircraft through suburbia or through 200 meters of crops and fencing). Injuries/Fatalities and property damage are often more expensive than the $500,000 aircraft or the $50,000 - $100,000 chute repack and repair.

However, nothing beats Pilot flight currency, regular recurrent training, proper flight reviews and knowing the ins and outs of the aircraft you fly.

Safe Flying out there.

[VH-XXX]

The Cirrus doesn't land particulaly faster than any other aircraft of the same weight and will see you pull up easy enough in 400 metres or so. I know a 22 that operates out of a 300 metre strip. No less than 75 on late final or thereabouts should see you arriving savely so realistic touchdown speed is certainly a lot less than that.

[T28D]

This I can agree with, until you are confronted with the problem all is speculation.

I honestly don't know what I would do.

My instinct says pull the handle, my ego says go on you can glide it in.

Maybe instinct would win. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[TBM-Legend]

If he'd have got it wrong on the forced lob then the "experts" here would say 'why didn't he use the chute?':mad:

[Jabawocky]

That is probably what the experts would say.

I am not an expert by any means, but I would be of the opinion given the severe flat paddock, that he should not have stuffed it up.

FFS.... that paddock looks as good as the runway I operate from. Just ask Forkie!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If anyone knows the pilot, can I get connected somehow.He's probably happily married Jaba! :E

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

You are funny Forkie.

Here is a well written article..... they let the pilots words get printed.

'PLANE' LUCKY: pilot and passenger walk away from crash | Daily Liberal (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1139644/plane-lucky-pilot-and-passenger-walk-away-from-crash/?cs=112)

Seems he made a calculated decision, and stuck to his plan. Can't criticise that.

The decission to ride out a canopy descent into a flat field is interesting, they were looking for farm strips, but decided the chute was a better option. At least they flew it to an area where a chute deployment would be optimal :D

I would hope I thought that clearly too.

[Stikybeke]

Thanks for reminding me Frank....

The water jump into Shoal Bay (Port Stephens...) from the Sh@thook. Another fun aircrew compulsory activity which preceeded the dreaded Comsurv (Combat Survival) course they used to run from YAMB... another great way to lose weight.....those were the days, no need to wait for Movember to grow a moustache back then.....

I'd forgotten all about that jump! Mine was in daylight (out of YWLM) and was static line after doing the tower run and spending the morning hanging about, shouting and getting shouted at back in the PTS hangar (when it used to be there..). I remember sitting in the back of the Chook and watching the PJI's clowning about on the ramp with one pretending to fall out the back and disappear whilst screaming while the other looked shocked! Great stuff, until it was your turn next after shuffling along hooked up....

Stiky
:ok:

Afterthought....

One benefit I remember was if you wet your pants when you went off the ramp then no one would know because it was into water anyway.....

Hang on, if yours was at night were you jumping into Salt Ash and went a tad astray?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Good report Jaba.....:ok:

Anybody know if the fuselage is supposed to be 'repairable' after an event like this?
The deceleration of 1,600fpm must cause a few probs. at the point of contact...engine mounts, u/c attachment points, wings, etc..??

Just curious is all...can't afford one anyway....:p

[Flyer517]

That SR looks suspiciously like one that has been parked at YSBK recently. Does anyonre know if it is the same one? Mind you, I am just comparing paint jobs!

[VH-XXX]

I've heard figures of $100k for a re-pack.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

PDFed AFM for SR22 (https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/CirrusDesign/WebHome/Cirrus_Manual.pdf)

Gaunty, not rated on the plastic fantastic...although I wish!

[Rich-Fine-Green]

The Cirrus Centre @ MB advised around $14k for the 10 year repack,

The rest of the spend would be the damage repairs and cosmetics.

From the photo it looks like all undercarriage, chute lines, some fuselage repairs and a bent prop.

Not to mention the cost of the original cause of the engine failure....

Yep, maybe all up close to $100k but as it's a later model, she may fly again rather than be written off.

[Jabawocky]

RFG

$100K..... what for the fuselage repairs? Plus the rest.

Add to that the engine and propellor which for a TAT TNIO550 will run out at well over $100K including all the other bits, I can see $130K before we start.

This aircraft was for sale in the USA not long back at $349K.

Nice machine too.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Jabba - Just speculation in this case from a single photo...maybe the engine is repairable.

I understand quite a few Cirrus have returned to service after a chute pull so my assumption was based on Insurance companies possibly repairing aircraft after a chute pull rather than writing it off.

On the other hand, maybe some Cirri have been bought as write-offs and returned to service by someone with deep-pockets, questionable sanity :-) and a lot of spare time on their hands.....

[Arnold E]

Dont forget the Lanceair that had the window blow out (for the third time), glass planes are repairable.:{

[Ultralights]

[quote]
That SR looks suspiciously like one that has been parked at YSBK recently. Does anyonre know if it is the same one? Mind you, I am just comparing paint jobs![\quote]

No, the one at YSBK is still here, Identical paint job though, looks very nice

[VH-XXX]

OH MY GOD, luckily they pulled the chute over that terribly bad tiger country, someone could have been seriously hurt during their descent from 5,000 ft into dense tiger country!! :\:{

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/wyh.jpg

'PLANE' LUCKY: pilot and passenger walk away from crash | Daily Liberal (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1139644/plane-lucky-pilot-and-passenger-walk-away-from-crash/?cs=112)

[Clearedtoreenter]

What will be more interesting is why the low oil pressure. Why did the ol 550 give up the ghost. We will have to wait and see for that.

+1 to that. Pretty much state of the art top of the line aircraft engine - that shouldn't have happened. The cause will certainly be interesting.

[Capt Fathom]

That is one huge field!

The pilot made a decision to pop the chute. But you have to wonder why a forced landing was rejected?

[VH-XXX]

Didn't the former Cirrus agent have something similar happen (engine wise) in his G3 Turbo off Hamilton Island a couple of years back?

Both articles read like an advert for Cirrus aircraft except that in this one they didn't use the patented Cirrus safety hammer (tm) to smash their way out :uhoh:

[havick]

Why wouldn't you use the chute? It's there for a reason, just like bang seats.

All the naysayers would be chest poking the pilot if he had rolled it up in the paddock attempting a dead-stick landing and killed someone. Then everyone would be asking why he didn't use the chute.

[jas24zzk]

hmm...
landed at airfields that look worse than that paddock.......
nuff said there.

Looking at the pic on this page, first thing i notice.......
Why are the flaps extended?

[gerry111]

I'm with you, havick on this.

A) John Nixon had a passenger with him for whom he was entirely responsible.

B) He had attended a familiarisation on the SR22's parachute system about 18 months prior at Wagga. So he was confident on how to use it.

C) He was flying a fixed tricycle U/C aircraft that could have done a nose over if caught in a rut, etc.

D) He avoided the temptation to be a hairy chested hero as some of you guys seem to hold him in contempt.

E) The Cirrus was presumably insured, so it's now a problem for that insurance company. Who cares if WYH ever flies again? The crew are safe.

F) Aircraft can be replaced but lives cannot.

G) Prior to my first solo in 1983, I did the usual engine failure check. My instructor had previously briefed me that the aircraft should always be treated as expendable, if necessary.

H) Jas24zzk, But were your landings in similar airfields to that paddock with a failed engine? The flaps may be extended because something may have broken on contact with the ground?

I) Very good airmanship, John Nixon. Well done!:)

[Rich-Fine-Green]

jas24zzk:

I would suggest the flaps were out to slow the SR22 down as much as possible prior to deploying the chute.

Seems to me that the Pilot made a clear, rational choice which resulted in the occupants survival.

Who cares about the field, the aircraft, the cause....They are alive and will soon have a cheque to either fix their bruised SR22 or buy another.

[Jabawocky]

Looking at the pic on this page, first thing i notice.......
Why are the flaps extended?

Best glide is well below the flap extension so maybe the first stages of flap are called for in achieving best glide.

They are for takeoff.

[Avgas172]

Hurrah! well done that man. Shame about the bump on the noggin', but he'll get over that. :ok:

[gaunty]

gerry111

Nicely and professionally sumarised. :ok:

Must have been a bit uncomfortable ringing his mate to tell he had trashed his Cirrus/Ferrari/Maserati/Roller, even though I'm certain his mate would have been relieved he was unhurt.

Well done that man.

Love him to bits but I know the feelings when my very shaken son rang to tell me he had crashed my brand new S80AWD when I let him take it for a spin. Not his fault and saved from the risk of serious injury by the 2000 odd airbags and other Volvo stuff the use of which meant a write off. Initial cost high but the result priceless and not a whimper from the insurance company.

His mother never said another word about what I paid for it. :E

[Arnold E]

Not his fault

Would that have made a difference??:E

[gaunty]

Nup, but it made me feel a bit better about it. :\

[jas24zzk]

Gerry,
hindsight is always a beautiful thing. Personally, would I have had a crack for that paddock? Hell yes. The ballistic chute like any safety device, has some limitations. Those limitations need to be at the forefront of your mind as one assesses how your forced landing is progressing. Chute= last resort, assess your progress and make the decision before you enter the area outside its envelope.

I have no qualms with the pilots decision to deploy, but from the information we have to work with here, it does appear the decision to deploy was made early.
Wasn't there, don't know for sure, but that is how it presents.

End of the day, 2 guys still walking :ok:


H) Jas24zzk, But were your landings in similar airfields to that paddock with a failed engine?

over 2200 times............provided you equate having no engine is the same as having a failed one.
Actually thinking about the field quality, my initial power training at YCEM saw me landing on an operational field that was as best as the worst paddock i ever landed on.

The flaps may be extended because something may have broken on contact with the ground?

Exactly why I asked the question. Rich, Fine Green may have it. Probably a q better answered by a cirrus jockey who has done the course for a definative answer.

Cheers
Jas

[Avgas172]

I have no qualms with the pilots decision to deploy, but from the information we have to work with here, it does appear the decision to deploy was made early.

This is the fact that I applaud him for ..... once you have made the decision to (insert action here) stick with it etc etc, he made the decision early (IMO a good thing) sorted out where and when he wanted to deploy and stuck with it .... rest is now history, bump on the noggin and a good landing (anyone you can walk away from)
cheers
A172

[Capt Fathom]

Avgas, therein lies the problem. Once you make the decision to [deploy the chute], you are stuck with it! There is no going back.

I'm a little concerned that people are being conned into believing that the BRS is their get-out-of-jail-free card!

It's a bit like a EFATO in a twin vs a single. A twin does not guarantee a successful outcome!

[Clearedtoreenter]

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday reported the accident was the first successful emergency parachute deployment by a Cirrus aircraft in Australia.


Presumably the others were unsuccessful then?

Anyone prefer to have been in a Bonanza in that situation?

[spinex]

How about the Hamilton Island one then - I seem to recall the pilot got a bit banged up but survived getting dunked.

[Arnold E]

I may be wrong here, but, at 1500' (high key) how many of you have good enough eyesight to tell the size of the imperfections on the ground?? The paddock may be huge and relatively flat but how high are the plough furrows, for instance (or rabbit holes or a lot of other possibilities). I would suggest that if any one of you can determine that from the high key, then you are of legendary status. Mear mortals may, however have chosen to take the known end result as the preferred option.

[Jack Ranga]

Are Cirrus serious? 1600ft per minute under canopy :hmm: make the friggin' canopy bigger, and make it square so you can steer it..........tools.:ugh:

[Arnold E]

Are Cirrus serious? 1600ft per minute under canopy http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif make the friggin' canopy bigger, and make it square so you can steer it..........tools.:ugh:

Well, its a better option than Boeing has got.:E:E

[VH-XXX]

I believe the Hamilton island one was at low level (below recommended deployment altitude) and it flipped over when it hit the water and Steve escaped out the back window by using the patented Cirrus (tm) safety hammer. Will have to drag up the prune thread on it, but none-the-less it was certainly deployed.

One other went off due to engine failure near Sydney that was unsuccessful and was also at a very low altitude.

Pilot escapes sinking plane | Mackay Daily Mercury (http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/pilot-escapes-sinking-plane/435531/)

ASN Aircraft accident 24-DEC-2009 Cirrus SR22 GTS G3 Turbo VH-SLS (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=70669)

A few moments before the crash the pilot activated the CAPS (emergency parachute).

Maybe that wasn't "successful" in the eyes of the ATSB.

CAPS deployment #21, Dec 2009, Hamilton Island, Australia, 1 seriously injured Factors: engine loss of power, misfueled with Jet-A, attempted return to airport; Activation: low altitude, 441 feet above ocean; Weather: VMC; Landing: ocean

You learn something every day, I didn't recall reading that back when he dropped in the ocean.

[jas24zzk]

Jack,
you cannot be serious about making it steerable. surely!

The training for meat bombs progressing to steerable chutes is bad enough, but you want to make a pilot be able to steer a chute from the cockpit in a high emotion environment.
hmmm

Better we leave it to the elements and perve on the cute nurses during our post BRS recovery stint in the hospital.

[Jack Ranga]

Fuc'n a bro, that way you could do a forced landing :ok: bit expensive to practice them though :cool:

[Clearedtoreenter]

I reckon I'd prefer an A36, maybe with the gear up, in that terrain.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Anyone prefer to have been in a Bonanza in that situation?

Those in the know would prefer to be in a Bonanza, preferably a V-tail, in any situation! :E:E:E

Dr :8

[Up-into-the-air]

Come on, it was just a paddock - would land any GA aircraft I have had on it with no issues.


Maybe we need to re-visit EFATO and engine failure procedures.

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
CAPS deployment #21, Dec 2009, Hamilton Island, Australia, 1 seriously injured Factors: engine loss of power, misfueled with Jet-A, attempted return to airport; Activation: low altitude, 441 feet above ocean; Weather: VMC; Landing: ocean
You learn something every day, I didn't recall reading that back when he dropped in the ocean.

One could ask why there is no ATSB report.

There have been mis-fuelled accidents before, however ay Hammo, I seriously doubt that, and supposedly the nozzles for JetA on't fit into the typical GA filler.

If it was mis-fuelled, by the owner who has a lot of GA experience, would you not think that was strange.....almost by design? :hmm: Dots not lining up?

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
Anyone prefer to have been in a Bonanza in that situation?
Those in the know would prefer to be in a Bonanza, preferably a V-tail, in any situation!

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gifhttp://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gifhttp://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif




And Forkie......how is that working out for you? Not much risk of landing in paddocks these days?

I reckon if we dangled a nice SR22 with the TAT integrated O2 and TN system........you would be on it like a fat kid on a cup cake! :}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks to Mr Ozbusdriver for the link....

From the POH (AFM)... Section 3, page 20 -

"CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe
and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high
deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind
conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the
occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated
when any other means of handling the emergency would not
protect the occupants from serious injury.
• Caution •
Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent
to a drop from approximately 13 feet.
• Note •
Several possible scenarios in which the activation of the
CAPS would be appropriate are discussed in Section 10 -
Safety Information, of this Handbook. These include:
• Mid-air collision
• Structural failure
• Loss of control
• Landing in inhospitable terrain
• Pilot incapacitation
All pilots should carefully review the information on CAPS.....

'Is expected to result in the loss of the airframe'......'a drop from approx 13 ft'.....

Not to be treated 'lightly' one would suggest...
There are further instructions - not above 133 kts - hence maybe the flaps....
and engine off...etc etc

A bit 'late' now, but the paddock didn't look all that 'gruesome'...

Ah well...he walked away, and that is the object of the exercise....
:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Just found in Section 10...

'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.

Cheers:ok:

[gaunty]

FSO me old thanks for that:cool:

I'll bet most of the folks here dont know that you/we were used to fleigening in areas of the WACs marked with large hachured swathes marked "hypsometric and other information unreliable do not use for navigation" or something like that. :eek: Now that I think about it irt is conceivable that cunning old bugger Lang H arranged it to keep the aerial prospectors away, seeing as it covered most of the iron ore prospects.:p

To put some perspective on the Cirrus thingy try the following:

Open Google Earth

Draw and save a path from Emerald ALA to Dubbo ALA.

Draw and save a path from Gilgandra ALA to a position 7 km 180M.

We do not have any information about the cruise altitude but at this time of the year I'd be up there, elevation of the area around 900-950 feet.

The second one will show you the site paddock/s and then have a look at the terrain under the Emerald Dubbo track towards the site and the possible return to Gilgandra.

Then you may draw an informed personal conclusion about whether you may or may not have pulled the handle.

I say good thinking 99.

As an aside we use Google as part of the risk analysis and preflight planning for new destinations for a good look around, to get a feel for what the terrain looks like and generally what to expect. We then fly all of the available approaches in a full motion sim prior. No surprises is for what we are aiming. It's amazing how we did it with the old faithful hypso's.

What an amazing world we live in, it is even more so from my age perspective coming from the old manual tuned HF with trailing aerials (left on fences all around Australia), manually tuned ADF and so on. I remember actually weeping with joy at the sight of the new, now old KHF950 digital HF.

I think they call it "petite mort" when the GPS was brought into use.:rolleyes::8

But dont get me started on the box in road.:uhoh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks for that Mr 'G',

A WAC, a ruler and a pencil.....and Oh yes...a Shell road map - it had more details of the roads 'directions and distances' than the ole WAC....
'Ephemeral lakes & rivers'..?? A series of somewhat 'vague' dotted lines...

And thankfully all of the roads of which we speak were dirt / gravel / dust...so we just looked for 'rooster tail' of dust to see where they were...

Funny how we used to arrive at correct destination, 'on time'...usually...

Cheers:ok:

[Simon Lockie]

I imagine with 100% certainty that anyone in this situation who did NOT have a BRS chute would not have considered using one. They would have been consumed with the task at hand, and rightly so.

I don't know the area where this happened but I know the area surrounding my field like the proverbial back of my hand. I know that it all looks flat and lovely from 2000 feet (even better from 5000). And I know that my students think the same. However I also know that from 500 feet most of it looks a lot less inviting and from ground level a lot of it looks downright unappealing. Add to that the other environmental concerns.

4 months ago we got to go and recover an aircraft from a paddock after an unsuccessful forced landing that killed both occupants. The PIC was a current pilot with decent hours. In the pressure situation a few things didn't go his way and so he and his mate got killed. It wouldn't have mattered how good the paddock was, they stalled in from 100 feet +or-. I won't go into more detail, suffice to say that dead is dead.

As I've said, I know this area well, previously I would've had no qualms executing a forced landing here. After a session of picking up airplane bits in a field, my opinion changed.

We now have a BRS installed in our training aircraft and I would have no hesitation or shame in using it.

[GedStreet]

Thanks to Griffo, we are aware of what the POH says. It therefore appears that the PIC acted in accordance with the POH in terms deployment or in this case non-deployment of the chute. Therefore no suit (in relation to the chute) is available against the pilot. QED that will be CASA and ATSB's finding.

That's the way the establisment looks at it. Maybe under different circumstances, follow the POH and die or use your skills as a pilot, contrary to the POH, and survive - to face the suit.

[Jabawocky]

I bet $50 the ATSB do sweet FA.

Just like a few others, and yet there may be some good info as to why this one had a failed engine.

ATSB will waste heaps on the tragic loss of UXG, but there is nothing to learn there. Go figure.

Mind you failed engines is not exactly their forte either.

[bentleg]

I bet $50 the ATSB do sweet FA


Yep as there were no fatalities in a GA aircraft I agree ATSB will more than likely give it a miss.

The fact that an engine failure could have wider implications wont rank as highly as the publicity that gets generated when there is loss of life, or something equally newsy such as the Norfolk Island ditching.

[Cloud Basher]

I love the quarterbacking of this by people who just going by their responses have likely never flown an SR22.

Anyone who has actually flown a Cirrus and has read the POH and done the training would almost certainly have pulled the chute. The pilot made the right decision, all walked away.

The decision to deploy the chute in a Cirrus IS NOT made when you have an engine failure or any other emergency. You have already made it in your brief and you have mentally reversed it for your flight. Well I know that is what we were taught by very high hour Cirrus pilots. It is similar to the decision in a fast jet fitted with an ejection seat. Below a certain height with (insert emergency X) you eject. In fact I have been on two debriefings where the fast jet pilot was admonished for not ejecting. They decided they would try and save the aircraft rather than eject and in both instances they did. But the learning point from it was you should have ejected. Funnily enough, as much as fighter pilots have ego's they don't appear to be anywhere near as large as some the GA pilots here who categorically say "I would have landed it". In any other aircraft but a Cirrus of course you would try that. But in a Cirrus you have other options. Therefore those comments say absolutely nothing about safety and EVERYTHING about your ego and how cool you will look to your mates if you pull it off.

The decision height we brief is 1500ft agl. It appears this pilot had reached a similar height and made the decision. He states he was looking for an airfield but when he reached a height he pulled the chute. Anyone who has landed a Cirrus on grass or other non-sealed surfaces knows they can be a handful for two reasons, the closely spatted wheels that quite easily jam with grass and the non steerable nose wheel. These two factors alone on an aircraft of this weight can make it interesting. Also anyone who has read other Cirrus accidents where the chute was not deployed and learned from them would see the aircraft doesn't do well in off airfield landings. I would take an educated guess and say this pilot knew all of this and made his decision.

With this decision height, your eyesight must be awesome to be able to tell the condition of the ground and if it is suitable for a forced landing. Even knowing the general condition of the ground, unless you are the cocky that owns that land you would not know the specific condition of the ground. Thus why wouldn't you pull the chute.

1600fpm descent rate is eminently survivable, the aircraft is designed for it. I go back to the first point in the training. You have already made the decision prior engine start. If the engine stops, and no airfields in gliding range, pull the chute by 1500AGL.

I do find it interesting that so many people actually care about whether you can use the aircraft again. It is not a priceless relic like a Mustang or Spitfire or V tailed Bonanza. It is a friggen Cirrus. Who gives a stuff!

This outcome was as good as you could possibly hope for with an engine failure.

To answer a few questions raised and points made.

1. the guy who posted about his mate who regularly lands on a 300m grass strip has underestimated the length or failed to mention this is only possible with a significant headwind and the aircraft must be nowhere near gross. On sealed strips with about 10kts on the nose I can get it down and stopped in less than 300m but without the headwind and heavy braking your mate must be THE best Cirrus pilot in the world! And then to get it back out of 300m he must have balls of steel. On a sealed strip with no wind 2 up and half fuel takes me about 350m. At gross that goes to almost 500m. I think this guy should run lectures on the Cirrus because he can obviously get it to perform better than any other Cirrus pilot I know or have heard about.

2. They can and have been rebuilt after a chute deployment. This decision is purely an insurance company decision.

3. I was at a brief on new vs old aircraft and the figure of 50% of those cost of a new Cessna was mentioned as being the manufacturers insurance overhead on that airframe for 25 years.

Before people cain me, I regularly fly aerobatics, fly taildraggers, regularly fly west of Bourke to short dirt strips (not in a Cirrus - last trip was to Eromanga two weeks ago!) and semi-regularly land in paddocks with suitable aircraft with suitable undercarriage. I for one cannot fault this pilots decision making and would likely have done exactly the same myself.

A successful forced landing involves knowing the wind, weather surface condition slope (all those good things we learnt about in training), but just as importantly pilot skills and in this case the capabilities of the aircraft. In this aircraft you have an extra option, just like a twin gives you options. When and how to use that option comes down to training. It appears this pilot followed his training and achieved a successful outcome. That is all I hope for, for the rest of my flying life.

To those saying otherwise I would suggest if flying a Cirrus you should revisit your aircraft specific training.

Cheers
CB

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

It is not a priceless relic like a Mustang or Spitfire or V tailed Bonanza.:ok:

..........

[Capn Bloggs]

It is not a priceless relic like a ... V tailed Bonanza.
Flown by relics? :}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

RE - "Mind you failed engines is not exactly their forte either. "

For those who may have forgotten, or who simply may not know.....

Pelican's Perch: The Whyalla Report -- Junk Science? (http://www.airsafety.com.au/pelp0057.html)

Very Interesting......

[Jabawocky]

Griffo, that is a great link....but there is more to it than that.

See this bit in JD's article, he was writing about something that was a hunch, and later found to be correct.I get the impression that the broken crankshaft was found (but not by the ATSB), and the "investigation" focused on that almost to the exclusion of the hole in the piston on cylinder #6 on the right engine. One question that occurs immediately is about the magneto timing. That should have been checked on both engines, and reported. It might have had a major bearing on the accident, as a mistimed engine could have greatly accelerated detonation, pre-ignition, and contributed to the fatigue in the crankshaft. (Later information indicates the timing was checked and found normal - but not reported.)

When the timing was found to be correct, that was because at the last maintenance check it was "adjusted". Nobody recorded what it was before or after, but it was adjusted.

Now the company had flight records of tis engine with EGT and CHT data from the basic instruments, from before the overhaul, after the installation, and after the last service work. If you had shown me the data I would have spotted it. That simple.

ATSB......Nope! They focussed on all sorts of stuff. Sure the crank had a flaw, but it may well have flown on a few hundred more hours, maybe TBO even...(probably not but you get the idea) but the significant difference in timing error nod doubt accelerated the failure to a nasty coincidental consequence.

And when you learn about a heap of other complicit events that were never reported........ Ohh they would get sarcs, gobbledock and kharon all excited :}

[Stikybeke]

This'll be good......

Stiky
:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Sticky, What will be?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, this is getting a little kinky. Jaba, methinks you forgot a comma.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb

First 'Successful' Australian Cirrus Chute Pull Ends Well

Australia recorded its first "successful" Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) Nov. 21, according to the Australian Transportation Safety Board, and pilot John Nixon's cellphone self-portraiture told the story pretty well. After the engine on the SR22 G3 he and a friend were flying lost oil pressure and seized near Gilgandra, New South Wales, Nixon told the Daily Liberal that he first looked for an airstrip or country road to set down on but as he ran out of options he decided to pull the chute. "Adrenalin kicked in and I automatically did what was needed," Nixon, a private pilot with about 1,950 hours, told the newspaper. "We were on the ground less than a minute after the oil gauge indicated the problem." It was third time a Cirrus pilot has pulled the chute in Australia but the other incidents didn't work out so well.

In February of 2009 the chute on a Cirrus failed to extract and the pilot made a forced landing instead with minor injuries to the pilot and passenger. In December of 2009 a pilot was seriously injured in a low-level (441-foot) deployment of the chute. However, things went more or less according to plan in last Wednesday's incident. The aircraft settled hard enough to collapse the gear and Nixon got a black eye by kneeing himself in the impact. He said he and his passenger got out of the plane immediately in case it caught fire but soon went back to retrieve his cellphone. He called air traffic control to let them know about the situation and then snapped a few pictures of the scene. Nixon's was the 39th recorded deployment of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). Number 38 happened Nov. 16 near Holbrook, Ariz. An oil pressure issue also preceded that event. The aircraft ended up on its back and the pilot and lone occupant suffered minor injuries.Interesting that No 38 & 39 were the result of oil pressure issues. Some endemic problem?

[Ultralights]

something doesnt smell right, cruising at 5000ft, oil pressure indicates a problem... on the ground under the chute in under 1 minute from first indication of oil issue.....

whats the Cirrus's rate of descent in a glide?

[VH-XXX]

Can't you add up Ultralights?

5,000ft altitude - 950 elevation @ 1,600fpm = 1 minute.

Easy!

;)

I suspect the 1 minute figure is somewhat poetic licence.

[Stikybeke]

Sorry Jabba,

On reflection I think was starting to exhibit the early signs of a thread drift however I thank you for bringing me back on line...I do that sometimes...

Stiky
:O

[Jabawocky]

Mate, I love a good drift as much as I can get away with:O

If you mean ATSB bashing over Whyalla....yeah, we should save that for another time.

[Stikybeke]

"And when you learn about a heap of other complicit events that were never reported........ Ohh they would get sarcs, gobbledock and kharon all excited"

Correct Jabba.... Well...there's the bait on the line that caught my eye anyway...

Stiky
;)

[VH-XXX]

Did I not read in one of the articles in this thread that the engine was misbehaving possibly several hours prior to the engine failing during the same flight? This does sound a little like Whyalla in that case.

[Jabawocky]

hahhha

That would be where the similarities start and end though.

But I think I know what you are thinking XXX :suspect:

[Clearedtoreenter]

But I think I know what you are thinking XXX

Jaba... Do tell. It does seem slightly improbabable that a $600,000 state of the art machine suffers a totally random loss of oil pressure in mid flight. As it seems likely it's now a write off, I do hope it's not covered by our insurer, or we might all end up paying something for this :confused:

[Jabawocky]

Not much to tell, but I knew what XXX was referring to.

I have not any firm evidence to offer here but the passing of perfectly usable runways with an indication of a problem, or in the previous case after the first problem is often seen with hindsight as not a good idea.

I wish I knew more about the SR22 but it is a fair bet the plane and engine were were not the real problem. It is most often poor pilot or maintenance defects that lead to these things. And none of us are immune to it.

I think a quick simple ATSB report would be nice, plenty of live witnesses, engine data logs..... If that told the story, it would be of more interest than some that get big lengthy reports at great expense.

[Clearedtoreenter]

I think a quick simple ATSB report would be nice, plenty of live witnesses, engine data logs..... If that told the story, it would be of more interest than some that get big lengthy reports at great expense.

Can't disagree with that. Must be a relatively straightforward explanation that could be provided within a month.

[busconductor]

Outstanding post, Cloud Breaker. Spot on in every way. The Cirrus has an additional safety feature in the CAPS thanks to the Klapmeier brothers, who designed it, wanting it to be the safest aircraft possible. The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have concentrated their safety focus on minimising the number of fatal accidents for members. The members forum of COPA applauded loudly the pilot's actions in this accident. As would all Australian Cirrus pilots who have been trained by Cirrus approved instructors.

The Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program teaches that at 500ft ago CAPS is available, above 2000ft agl consider your options. But if you can't land on an airstrip after an emergency, including a total engine failure, - pull the chute preferably by 2000ft agl.

Driving your Pajero/Land Cruiser/BMW X5 down a ramp onto an untested paddock at 125kph makes no sense to me. And all of them would cope much better than a Cirrus.

[Clearedtoreenter]

The Cirrus has an additional safety feature in the CAPS thanks to the Klapmeier brothers, who designed it, wanting it to be the safest aircraft possible. The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have concentrated their safety focus on minimising the number of fatal accidents for members.

The facts and statistics of Cirrus accidents support the view of the safest aircraft possible do they?

YouTube (http://m.youtube.com/?piggyback=2#/watch?v=PM3s24j3cbU)

[Jack Ranga]

Cloud basher, just out of interest, hypothetical, your oil pressure guage is indicating a loss of pressure. You are tracking departure point direct to destination. You press the 'direct to' button on the GPS, you track direct to the closest aerodrome, say, in this hypothetical it's, ahhh I dunno? Gilgandra.

Still losing oil pressure, what do you do? Overfly to destination hoping for the best or land at Gilgandra?

[VH-XXX]

The members forum of COPA applauded loudly the pilot's actions in this accident. As would all Australian Cirrus pilots who have been trained by Cirrus approved instructors.

I am an Australian pilot who was trained in a certified Cirrus flying school and I don't applaud the pilot for his actions for a number of reasons that led up to this "incident." I can only hope that the ATSB get a hold of the avionics stack for further analysis ;)

[Arnold E]

I am an Australian pilot who was trained in a certified Cirrus flying school and I don't applaud the pilot for his actions for a number of reasons that led up to this "incident." I can only hope that the ATSB get a hold of the avionics stack for further analysis http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Fair dinkum, you cant be serious, as far as I can see, the manufacturer of the aircraft recommend this procedure and you dont????
The FACT is, the people walked away from this accident, it is NOT possible to guarantee that the same would have happened if they had taken the option of attempting a forced landing.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

Ahhhhhh, Arnold, read my post above triple's, answer that post before you ask triple that question. Apart from my post there is more to this. I echo triple's sentiments, I hope we get the full story:ok:

If you were the pilot of that aircraft, as an engineer, that accident would never have gotten to the stage it did. Have a think about it. The ONLY good thing about this is that student pilots should be sat down with a cuppa & have a good read. That's if the arseclowns don't stuff the report :ugh:

[Arnold E]

Jack, no question that continuing with oil pressure on the decline was stupid, no question, but the decision to pull the big red handle in my opinion was not.
Given that the original decision was stupid (looking at this from an engineer's perspective, and pilot, ) the decision to pull the handle was not, (looking at it from the same perspective).

[Jack Ranga]

Mate, I won't criticise the handle pull, wasn't there and don't know anything about the procedure. Apart from what Griffo posted about the procedure, I'd **** myself more pulling that handle than attempting a forced landing into that paddock :cool:

I think triple is more than qualified in this instance to comment ;)

[VH-XXX]

Arnold - I would happily accept that the pilot pulled the handle.... can't argue with him for that as much as we might think the paddock could land a 737, but as Jacko says, it's what allegedly happened leading up to the big pull that would be of the most concern and no Cirrus association member in the world would agree with that.

I'd love for the pilot to come on here and give us a full account of what happened rather than what sounded like a Cirrus marketing advertorial diatribe in the Dubbo Weekly Times.

[VH-XXX]

Luckily for the guy in the aerobatic aircraft his descent wasn't at 1,600fpm+ Great video!

- Oh, the video disappeared. Put it back, it was relevant!

[nitpicker330]

Video disappeared quickly!!

Was good too...

[Clearedtoreenter]

Sorry I stuffed the pic. Gosh you lot are quick!

Real Aircraft Loses Wing, Lands Safely (Under Canopy) - YouTube

[Ultralights]

quite possibly not at 1600ft/min quite possible its a far lighter airframe, made lighter again less one wing.