The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[Deeday]

'PLANE' LUCKY: pilot and passenger walk away from crash (http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1139644/plane-lucky-pilot-and-passenger-walk-away-from-crash/)

Engine failure in a Cirrus at 5000 ft, day VMC, over a dream-field for a forced landing (check out picture No. 3): would you have pulled the chute?

[kms901]

Don't know, but I wouldn't have been flying wearing a "pilots shirt", complete with epaulettes !

[obgraham]

Sommat don't make sense:

He claims he was on the ground one minute after engine seizure, at 5000 feet. So he glided (!) from 5000 to 2000, then pulled the chute and hit the deck, all in one minute?

What's the "best glide speed" and glide ratio of a SR22? If it's that bad, maybe I should just tie an engine to a rock!

And yeah, that's an awfully nice flat field he gave up on!

[Richard Westnot]

I have many hours on the Cirrus and recall the Cirrus instructor saying many times during the conversion "engine failure above 1000ft agl - pull the chute" I went along with this drill to appease him but in real life I think I would adopt a full forced landing and control the aircraft to the ground.

My initial training was with an ex RAF instructor in a C152/steam dials.

I took my old instructor for a ride in the Cirrus a few weeks ago and he reinforced again.
Fly the aircraft DON'T pull the chute. IF you do, you have lost control of the aircraft and will simply end up where the wind takes you.

The field in picture No 3 looks perfectly acceptable to me

[ShyTorque]

No good fields available but thankfully the aircraft found a really nice one for them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My vote for the most unnecessary thread of the year award.....

[Loose rivets]

Please tell me this is a windup. :\

[fujii]

This has been done to death in the DG&P forum, General Aviation, Cirrus crash near Dubbo.

[obgraham]

Unfortunately some of us are not currently up to date on what's playing three levels down in the DD&G forum. Especially when not much was decided there.

Seems like a legitimate topic of discussion for the general aviation population at large. There are lots of Cirri in the skies out here.

[fatmanmedia]

i've landed on rougher runways than that field, it's as good as a forced landing spot as i've seen if I was engine out and was presented with that to land on my hand would never even think about touching the "wimp's handle".

i agree the worst example of unnecessary chute pull ever.

fats

[englishal]

Calling it a "Wimps Handle" is just about the stupidest thing I have read about the Cirrus chute. I suppose that cruise ships have too many lifeboats these days, and the RAF are a bunch of knobs for bailing out in a similar situation?

[darkroomsource]

From that article Yesterday Mr Nixon and Mr Warren travelled back to the accident scene to check the aircraft

hmmmm....
I wonder if they flew the other cirrus, the one he owns, and landed in the field next to the accident aircraft?

[stickandrudderman]

Everyone who says that anyone who pulls the shute has made a mistake gets no respect from me.
You weren't there. You have absolutely no idea how you'd react in the same situation and to sit in your comfortable chair and criticise is simply purile.

The chances of a satisfactory outcome after pulling the chute? prob99 if over flat land.
The chances of a satisfactory outcome after a forced landing into a field? prob50.

Wake up and smell the coffee people.:ugh:

[mogas-82]

Of course one can say in retrospect that this was an unnecessary act. But we weren't in the aircraft, don't know how well it is insured and whether the owner of the Cirrus may have enough in his bank account to buy 100 more aircraft. Maybe the pilot panicked, maybe he has no rough field experience - we can't know that. All we know is that he walked away from the aircraft, something one can not say about almost 100 other cirrus pilots who hadn't had the same luck.

[Loose rivets]

Not sure which is the active thread, but anyway, I don't agree, Mr Rudderman.

I still am not sure I'm awake, but the device is bizarre. Used for spinning students, okay, I'd go along with that, but to carry it for the life of the aircraft in normal circumstances is bewildering. And the explosive bits? Oh, my.


Clearly, just having it there has made him think about its use while he might well have been better served by planning an engine-out landing. And that's another thing - just how many dead cuts do we see these days?

Right through my training on Tigers, Austers and Chipmonks, I don't recall a single failure in any of the three clubs I belonged to. And come to think of it, not one since. My Rallye RR engine never missed a beat night or day for months. It will be interesting to see if the oil indication really did preceded an oil pressure failure.

It looks a nice little aircraft, shame to see its demise.

[Loose rivets]

something one can not say about almost 100 other cirrus pilots who hadn't had the same luck.

3 AM too tired to look it up, but what are you saying . . . if you have one of these aircraft, you'd better have a chute?

[airpolice]

What would he have done in a PA28 in the same situation?

[007helicopter]

yaaawn !!:ugh::ugh:

[Dg800]

But we weren't in the aircraft, don't know how well it is insured and whether the owner of the Cirrus may have enough in his bank account to buy 100 more aircraft.

And that's relevant how? Once you pull the handle, you relinquish control of the aircraft to chance, meaning you might end up with more than just a written-off airframe. What use would hull insurance be to you if you, for example, find yourself confined to a wheelchair because you sustained a spinal injury upon touch-down?

[Dg800]

I still am not sure I'm awake, but the device is bizarre. Used for spinning students, okay, I'd go along with that, but to carry it for the life of the aircraft in normal circumstances is bewildering. And the explosive bits? Oh, my.This has been done to death too but still keeps coming up. The Cirrus cannot be flown without a ballistic recovery system as it is the only certified means of recovering from a spin for this type of aircraft. Hence "BRS INOP" always equals aircraft grounded until maintenance is performed and signed off for.

Ciao,

Dg800

[VMC-on-top]

yaaawn !!

Touche!

Where do we start with yet another "anti-Cirrus-and-their-dumb-pilots".

The chute is a safety device. There was a thread running not so long ago with a link to a COPA presentation discussing the merits of the use of the chute. Everyone who has used it within the limits has climbed out and walked away. Not all of those who thought they could recover / make a forced landing etc were quite so lucky. Sure, the field looks relatively flat but how many on here could safely say (whilst still above 1000ft) that it was definately flat, firm enough to land on with no pot holes? Probably very few, if any, I suspect.

He did the right thing, pulled the chute and walked away. End of. The aircraft will probably be repaired and flying again in the near future.

C'mon guys, change the record, these "anti-Cirrus" threads really are getting a little long in the tooth now!

[172driver]

These debates about the chute are just idiotic.

The guys walked away and the a/c is a problem for the insurance. Well done, I say.

[englishal]

military jet with an engine failure is a completly different scenario which is not worth discussing here
I was thinking more along the lines of a military turboprop, such as a Tucano, which will carry about the same amount of energy into a field. Is it military practice to dead stick land these into fields if the engine quit or are their SOPs to bail out? Also the grobs they use - I seem to remember reading that in the event of an EF at altitude, that the aircraft would be abandoned.

Anyway, I wasn't there so can't comment on the rights or wrongs of what the pilot did. I may have pulled the chute, or I may have opted for an off airport landing. I know in my plane I'd opt for the second, only because we don't have the option of a chute.

[airpolice]

172 Driver wrote:The guys walked away and the a/c is a problem for the insurance. Well done, I say.

Actually it becomes an insurance cost problem for all of us.

[airpolice]

The Tucano has bang seats and they need to be used as the chances are slim of finding a suitable field for the speed it needs to touch down at.

The Grob should be abandoned in the event of a loss of control, but there was forced landing in a field recently, near Cranwell as I recall. Not the first Grob to be put into a field and be repairable either.

[VMC-on-top]

Actually it becomes an insurance cost problem for all of us.

...and it would have been an even bigger problem if the guy had attempted a forced landing, flipped it over, the aircraft was written off and his passenger was killed. Instead, he pulled the chute, they both walked away and the aircraft was relatively in tact and almost certainly repairable at a fraction of the cost.

[airpolice]

And much less of a problem if he had just landed it in the field.

I wonder what he would do on a skills test if the Examiner closed the throttle, would he simply reach for the handle and expect to get the box ticked?

[VMC-on-top]

The Cirrus statistics are quite clear. Those who pull the chute within limits walk away. Those who attempt a forced landing, aren't usually so lucky. What this boils down to is was he confident in walking away by pulling the chute? Yes, he was, so he pulled it. We will never know if he would have been so lucky if he had attempted landing in a field. We will never know but the stats are clear. EF = chute. We can all be wise by glancing a few photos and saying that its like a bowling green, so he made a mistake. What we don't know is what the surface looked like from 2000ft. Could you - or anyone else for that matter - say with 100% certainty, that they could tell that a field landing is a better option from that altitude? I doubt it very much.

Here is the link to the COPA presentation. Long but worth listening to.

CAPS... CONSIDER - M9 Presentation on Vimeo

[Dg800]

Those who pull the chute within limits walk away.

Except where the system malfunctioned, in which case the passengers were carried away in a box. It is extremely naive to think that a system will NEVER EVER malfunction, even if used within limits.

[VMC-on-top]

So, if we are talking probability, then the probability of walking away from a chute pull within limits, with a repairable aircraft it is PROB 99. Walking away from an off airport landing with the same outcome? I'd say PROB 50? I know which option I'd take.

[Wirbelsturm]

I was thinking more along the lines of a military turboprop, such as a Tucano, which will carry about the same amount of energy into a field

Never been in a Tucano then? Weight and energy, even without the Turboprop running is vastly more than a Cirrus, sorry.

It is policy in the military to only use the seat when all other avenues of recovery have failed. The effects of the 'bang seat' are not pleasant even with the new seats, the rocket seats screwed your spine and thus were most definately a last resort!


The Grob had, in the past, along with the Firefly, problems with spinning in which case it was recommended (to students) to use the parachute in the event of inverted or high rotational spin. In recent times Grobs with thrown prop blades and engine failures have been successfully 'dead sticked'.

The entire debate is a non issue as the decision to either dead stick or abandon/go for the chute is down to purely personal faith in ones ability. No blame should be proportioned to the chaps decision as I'm sure there would be lots of posts of 'idiot' if he had the system, didn't use it and screwed the forced landing up resulting in death or injury.

Can't win.

[Dg800]

So, if we are talking probability, then the probability of walking away from a chute pull within limits, with a repairable aircraft it is PROB 99. Walking away from an off airport landing with the same outcome? I'd say PROB 50? I know which option I'd take.

If you want to base such a decision on completely made up numbers, then be my guest. Just remember that you have no second chance should the BRS malfunction and only partially deploy, unless you also carry a bailout rig.

[Sam Rutherford]

My understanding is that Cirrus actively encourage chute deployment, and actively discourage attempting a forced landing.

They have presumably done the maths...

Fly safe, with or without a little red handle, Sam.

[airpolice]

Doing the Maths:

Profit for us if a/c crashed into a field via BRS and replaced with a new a/c by the insurance company= A

Profit for us if a/c makes a forced landing in field and requires recovery & cosmetic repairs by nearest licensed engineer =B

Ah..............

[Sam Rutherford]

Hm, not convinced. I do think their priority is to demonstrate that you're less likely to die in a Cirrus than a... And that the chute will probably make a better stab at achieving that than the pilot.

I don't think it takes much damage to 'insurance write-off' a Cirrus - it's not lots of separate pieces held together with lots of rivets. I suspect nearly all Cirrus accidents (where there is some speed involved and an inanimate object) cause the machine to melted down and made into bottle tops. :)

[VMC-on-top]

You obviously haven't watched the video. At approx 28.30 ...

"The impact velocity under chute is 17 knots.
The impact velocity at 60 knots is 12 times more energy.
At 100 knots, it is 34 times more energy.
At 180 knots, it is 112 times more energy."

Dg800 yes, the prob50 / prob99 suggestion was made up but it was based upon the above.

With knowledge of the above, what would you suggest would be more realistic?

[Dg800]

My understanding is that Cirrus actively encourage chute deployment, and actively discourage attempting a forced landing.

In the POH, or just as a general statement? I doubt the former as it might expose them to major liability if the BRS where to malfunction while other options, such as a dead stick landing in a nearby suitable field, were available.
All I know for sure is that they mandate use of the BRS in case of an inadvertent spin (and of course forbid spinning it on purpose!) as it was a certification requirement.

[Dg800]

You obviously haven't watched the video. At approx 28.30 ...

"The impact velocity under chute is 17 knots.
The impact velocity at 60 knots is 12 times more energy.
At 100 knots, it is 34 times more energy.
At 180 knots, it is 112 times more energy."

This is utterly meaningless as it assumes an "impact" will be the inevitable outcome and this is in fact only true when the chute is deployed :E. If you really have a suitable field and do everything reasonably right, the chance you will impact anything are near to zero and hence the impact energy will be zero too (or well within the limits of what the undercarriage is designed to sustain).
The last statement is particularly meaningless. Unless the Cirrus has an approach speed near 180 knots, which I seriously doubt, the only situation in which you might impact at such a speed is in case of total loss of control (such as when spinning or after the horizontal stabilizer has set a different course than the rest of the airframe) in which case there really is no other option than the BRS.

[VMC-on-top]

What is meaningless is that you choose to ignore the energy with which you meet the ground. 17 knots V 60 knots. When you meet the ground in your forced landing at 60 knots, you still have to stop. It is not the aircraft meeting the ground which kills people, it is what happens with all that additional energy that you still have and what happens with it as you meet the ploughed field at almost 70 mph.

[Dg800]

I'm really not following you. Touching down at 60 knots is not an "impact". To stop, you simply use the brakes (maybe a bit more forcefully than usual, because you never know) as with any other (controlled) landing. Even if the gear were to give way, you will not stop abruptly and the kinetic energy will be dissipated gradually. The only case in which the aircraft will always come to an abrupt stop is when the chute is actually deployed! For the comparison to be meaningful you'd have to hit a concrete wall right after touch down, which would mean either that there really is no suitable field available (in which case pull the chute) or that you're not capable of putting the aircraft down where you want it without power, in which case you shouldn't be flying it to begin with. :}

[VMC-on-top]

You seem to be missing my point - perhaps purposefully!? We aren't talking about landing on a bowling green that you gently ease the brakes on. :ugh::ugh: You don't know what the surface is like (and certainly not from 2000 ft), you don't know how smooth it is, if there are any ditches, tree stumps, how soft the ground is etc. etc. Therefore, you have no way whatsoever, knowing what the outcome will be and whether you will come to gradual stop or whether you will end up inverted or otherwise.

With the chute, you take almost all of the variables out of the equation. You land in one spot, get out and walk away, right side up - and so will your passengers. Granted, you can't guarantee it, no-one said you could, but the chances are massively in your favour because you are meeting the ground with less energy!!

[Thud105]

Actually, I think you would have a fair idea of the surface - Australia + summertime = hot & dry. In horse racing parlance the going would be firm to good. And you must admit VMC, the field really (and I mean really) is big. Those trees look as if they are about a mile away -if not more.

[Fuji Abound]

This is all a bit childish - but whatever floats your boat.

It is all very well rehearsed.

1) A conventional forced landing that ends with a reasonable landing roll will turn out fine,
2) A conventional forced landing that ends with pilot loss of control, unseen power cables, large boulders, ditches, wire fences or other debri that cant be seen from x feet may work out less well,
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.

You can argue the toss as much as you like and it would be interesting to read anything new anyone has to say. As it is this is just the usual well rehearsed old ground, with the usual less than well informed opinions.

Don't let me stop you though, but it worries me a little that intelligent pilots wouldn't want to have a more intelligent conversation ;) rather than distorting past discussion (assuming they have taken the trouble to read that).

[VMC-on-top]

The field does look big but its always very difficult to tell from a photo. The first photo shows trees circa 200m away, the second shows something just off the left of the photo within say, 50 - 100m. The third, trees probably 3 - 400m, the fourth photo, possibly 2 - 300m, and the last, less than 100m?

It does look spacious certainly but if we assume that he landed on the edge of relatively large open space, then perhaps it is fair to say there may not have appeared to be a sufficiently lengthy clear run to get the aircraft down in.

It also seems clear that the ground is farmed and certainly appears to be relatively flat and firm. However, this is from the ground. From 2000ft up, you just don't know and thats the bottom line.

[Dg800]

You seem to be missing my point - perhaps purposefully!? We aren't talking about landing on a bowling green that you gently ease the brakes on.Actually, that's what everyone in this thread is talking about, i.e. pulling the chute anyway when there is clearly a suitable field available. May I respectfully suggest that with your attitude you never take up gliding? I'd hate to see you bailing out of a perfectly controllable glider every time you cannot make it back to home field, just because you think out-landings are unmanageable and must invariably land in disaster. :}

Ciao,

Dg800

[172driver]

Well, having flown in Oz and spent considerable time there 'Out Back', let me tell you that some of those 'hard and dry' fields can hold all sort of nasty surprises.

Now, I wasn't there and have no idea about the amount of local knowledge this pilot had or what that (or any other) field looked like from 2000ft. Frankly, I have no idea what I would have done.

Fact is - he pulled and they all walked away. In my book, a good outcome.

[Dg800]

This is all a bit childish - but whatever floats your boat.

Actually, yours is the only childish and disrespectful post I've seen so far. But hey, whatever floats your boat, right? :ok:

[Fuji Abound]

I'd hate to see you bailing out of a perfectly controllable glider every time you cannot make it back to home field

I had a friend who killed himself in what nearly all of us would have said looked like a perfectly suitable field - unfortunately he didn't see the ditch and fence beyond.

You are touching on rather sensitive ground.

[englishal]

The chance of a fatality during EF in a piston single, and associated force landing is 17% (almost 1 in 5) according to the NTSB based on years of data.

This is based upon US pilots only but I think that a chance of a fatality in somewhere like the UK is slightly higher. If pulling the chute lowered that 17% to 16, 15% or even 5% (1 in 20) then it is a no brainer, pull the chute.

[Dg800]

Accidents do happen, unfortunately, but to claim that out-landings are generally not survivable without a ballistic recovery system is, at best, just a load of marketing hype (that's synonymous with horse dung, BTW).

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, It does look as if that field would be ideal for winch launched glider ops. with maybe over 1000m of cable on the winch !

As for the sequence of events... Loss of oil pressure... Bang... Pull the chute.. All hapening in just a few seconds does not seem creditable.

More likely Bang... Loss of oil pressure... Then find a field.

I just wonder how much of the damage will be paid for by the Insurance; Engine and Airframe?

[Fuji Abound]

Dg800

but to claim that out-landings are generally not survivable without a ballistic recovery systemThat is exactly why I made the comment I did.

You are claiming they generally are, and I guess you are suggesting some are saying they are not.

That much is obvious and that is why the discussion doesn't justify this forum. As you will see if you read other threads and other discussion it is more complex. It is only from an appreciation of the issues that it is possible to have a sensible debate.

I didn't intend to be "rude", but was simply pointing out that your post rather suggests you haven't grasped the issues.

I know you will probably tell me you have .. .. .. but anyway just my ten and six worth, I will leave it to you.

[Dg800]

This is based upon US pilots only but I think that a chance of a fatality in somewhere like the UK is slightly higher. If pulling the chute lowered that 17% to 16, 15% or even 5% (1 in 20) then it is a no brainer, pull the chute.

Call me old school, but I still prefer to make decisions based also on current conditions and not just a general statistic. In this case this implies always looking outside and deciding based on what I see. For example, if I'm overflying a forest and can't glide clear, than it's a no brainer that I'll pull the chute. If I'm 100% within gliding range of an active airfield then again it's a no brainer I will perform a forced landing there.
Statistics are all fine and swell but whether the chute reduces the statical occurrence of a fatality from 17 to 10 percent will be of no interest to you if you still end up belonging to that 10 percent. :} You should always do what you think will maximize your chances of survival under the current circumstances and not just go by some statistic.

[Dg800]

I didnt intend to be "rude", but was simply point out that your post rather suggests you havent grasped the issues.

Yeah, right, I bow to your superior knowledge or whatever...

[Dg800]

but anyway just my ten and six worth, I will leave it to you.

You do realize you didn't contribute anything to the discussion except to despise what others have posted? IMHO that's worth much less... :ugh:

[englishal]

That is true DG800, and a good point. So faced with this situation, no loss of control, good altitude, within the flight envelope of the parachute, then they probably had a 100% chance of survival by using the chute :}

Anyway I wasn't there, it wasn't my decision to pull or not to pull, I am just glad that these people walked away from this.

[peterh337]

What is the vertical G shock when landing under the chute?

[Fuji Abound]

Dg800

- one final (and it really is final) comment on some ground we have covered before;

- do you teach - have you experience of how most pilots get on with a "surprise" glide approach with the throttle pulled on say the down wind leg. I know, I know you will say a qualified pilot should do better - but most dont! Fact, I know.

- you mention looking outside and basing it on what you see. You should be surprised what you cant see from 1,000 feet.

So yes perhaps it is to do with superior knowledge, it is to do with flying with other pilots a lot, it is to do with pulling the throttle and seeing how the "average" pilot copes, it is to do with flying with other pilots the first time they land on a perfectly sound farm strip which actually scares the hell out of them the first time, but after the sixth time is second nature, it is to do with all of these things.

Perhaps you have had that experience but you will forgive me saying if you have then your views are the exception from every other instructor I know.

That is why there is nothing "wrong" with your views and very many forced landings turn out just fine, but you dont seem to have taken into account the whole story. Worth thinking about - perhaps.

PeterH

Dont start - pleeease! :)

(but happy to leave the fun and games to you now, it is a bit boring, and I don't really know why I posted, should have known it was a mistake he he).

[Dg800]

...they probably had a 100% chance of survival by using the chute

No parachute system is really 100% reliable, unfortunately... :( There have actually been fatalities because of that, you know.
The fact is, there is an element of chance in both courses of action, so whether one or the other is better in a given situation will always be a matter of opinion. What I have an issue with are generalized statements such as "Always pull the chute, it's the best option", but also "Never pull the chute unless you have no other choice! (inadvertent spin or total loss of control)" is just as bad. :ok:

[peterh337]

Dont start - pleeease!

It was a real Q.

I have no intention of participating in yet another "Cirrus chute" thread.

[Dg800]

(but happy to leave the fun and games to you now, it is a bit boring, and I don't really know why I posted, should have known it was a mistake he he).

Best thing you've posted so far. This might come as a shock to you, but we are not here solely to entertain YOU. Think about it next time, before joining a discussion (not just on PPRune).

[airpolice]

I think we need to consider the idea that the forced landing would (probably) not be an issue if another part of the Cirrus hadn't failed. I'd prefer to use MY limited sills to get me down rather than rely on those of a company who have produced a product that has already failed and got me in the pickle that makes the choice seem so urgent.

Ejecting, or using a BRS, is not a guaranteed "walk away with no issues" type of solution.

I think the pilot in this particular incident did the right thing, for him, and I also think that if in the best part of 2,000 hours he's not mastered the forced landing, perhaps he should stick to BRS equipped aircraft. Or cars.

[Fuji Abound]

This might come as a shock to you, but we are not here solely to entertain YOU.

Oh don't worry you have already provided me with very good entertainment value, it is always fun to see how people react and how defensive they can be.

It is all good fun. I have no doubt we will all enjoy seeing how this thread develops.

BTW take some time to read some of the other threads on this subject (if you havent already) - there is some surprisingly informative information and a very skilled debate with Pace of this parish who (I think it is fair) ended up changing his views with regards the chute. Worth the read between the wind ups. ;)

[Thud105]

I think the polarised opinions are mostly down to a pilot's confidence in their abilities. For some, (myself included) there's enough confidence in our abilities to think "yes, I can stick what is essentially a small aircraft into a large field". I would not belittle those who think (or even know) they can't do it, but personally I'd have kept flying it.

[ShyTorque]

2) A conventional forced landing that ends with pilot loss of control, unseen power cables, large boulders, ditches, wire fences or other debri that cant be seen from x feet may work out less well,
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.

But by pulling the BRS handle you have already lost control. You are now at the mercy of the wind and fate.

I've seen the aftermath of two hot air balloon landing accidents where HT cables were hit at very low speed and the whole shooting match earthed, caught fire and killed people. On the end of a 'chute you would be in a similar situation and could only watch as the wind blows you into something nasty. If you were still flying the aircraft at least you might have a chance of avoiding them. So, on balance in the event of an engine failure I'd prefer the conventional PFL option rather than an instant chute pull, which appears to have been the case here.

One wonders how often the average PPL holder practices forced landings, or considers "what if...". This pilot seemed to prefer to immediately leave his fate to the 'chute where there seems to have been a very nice field to glide into.

The reported altitude being flown does leave me just a little sceptical because of the supposed "less than a minute" from the engine failure to being on the ground. So they came down at an average rate of more than 5,000 feet/minute! Even if the wings had dropped off it should have taken longer than that under the 'chute; and this was an aircraft initially flying level at cruise speed, then gliding, wasn't it?

[Squeegee Longtail]

"Any landing you make which you can walk away from is a good one. If you can use the aircraft again afterwards, it is great one"

Seriously, there are plenty of airstrips in Oz which are far smaller and less smooth than that area. With around 2,000 hrs that guy should have been more confident in his own abilities.

What exactly did they "teach" him in that BRS course he says he did a few months earlier? "Always pull the chute"?

They survived, which is goal no.1, so well done to that, but surely a better assessment could have been reached with that landing area underneath, especially with the time available from 5,000 ft?

[007helicopter]

No parachute system is really 100% reliable, unfortunately... There have actually been fatalities because of that, you know.

DG I agree no parachute system is 100%, the only fact is that in 100% of the Cirrus Caps pulls to date within operating limits there has so far been 100% success rate.

so whether one or the other is better in a given situation will always be a matter of opinion. What I have an issue with are generalized statements such as "Always pull the chute,

For most the training is not "alway's pull the chute but "consider CAPS in all off airport scenarios" there is quite a lot of difference between always and consider.

However I have made my own mind up that in an off airport landing / crash with an unknown surface I personally have planned as standard to pull the chute, unless winds on the ground are estimated above 30 knots in which case I will make the decision based on what landing sites are available.

This is a decision process evolved over the last 4 years and I started out trained like all pilots, in the event of engine failure or another emergency to land in a field, through training and awareness and wishing the best chance of survival I have changed my mind.

I give 100% backing to this guy, with 2000 hours he has thought through his options and made his choice and is alive and well and unscathed as are his passengers.

He probably did have a reasonable chance of putting it down in that field but I bet plenty here would stuff it up or get a surprise they did not expect with the surface.

[007helicopter]

With around 2,000 hrs that guy should have been more confident in his own abilities.

Squeege in all honestly how the hell do you know anything about his abilities or confidence?

[mad_jock]

With even a quarter of those hours any instructor should be able to plant it within a couple of feet of where they intended exactly on speed.

This is as well I presume his normal training area which he must have know like the back of his hand.

If you can't pull of a forced landing from pretty much anywhere in the local training area after 1000 hours never mind 2000 hours you shouldn't be teaching.

Anyway that will have put payed to his commercial career outside instructing so one less looking for the next step up.

[007helicopter]

With even a quarter of those hours any instructor should be able to plant it within a couple of feet of where they intended exactly on speed.

Where does it say he was an instructor?

[mad_jock]

Right enough I am talking bollocks.

How many aircraft do they produce a month?

[007helicopter]

How many aircraft do they produce a month?

Don't know current numbers but very roughly 5500 in 10 years, I would guess current production 20+ pcm

[Pace]

In this particular incident while the pilot professes to have had a thorough Caps instruction he went totally against the manufacturers recommendations in the flight manual.
This was a conventional forced landing aiming for a suitable landing and only if no suitable forced landing site exists to CONSIDER the use of the Caps.
Obviously this pilot had plenty of suitable landing sites but still pulled the Caps.
So we have a contradiction between certain training bodies and the manufacturer.
The worst thing in any forced landing or Caps pull is indecision so there has to be agreed guidlines on when or when not to pull the Caps.
I very much view the Chute as I would the other engine on a twin ie it gives you further options.
Where Fuji and 007 Heli have changed my mind are that I would consider using the caps in situations where the aircraft is still flyable.
I hoped I coverted 007Heli into being very cautious in strong winds?
I do consider the Caps lures pilots into flying in conditions where they are not capable.
And here is my second conversion to Caps! An acceptance that a number of pilots are deficient in basic handling skills hence pulling the caps is the lesser of two evils!
But yes the Caps is a substantial move forward in safety lets get some approved guidlines in its use.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

To introduce some facts into this age old debate you have a 1 in 5 chance of killing yourself in a conventional forced landing. You can argue the toss on the stats., but that is the overall conclusions and experience in the States.

Inevitably that includes landings in unsuitable terrain, it includes landings in suitable terrain where the pilot lost control and doubtless it includes pilots that passed out, but there was no evidence they had when their body was recovered.

Never the less you have a 20% chance of killing yourself and of those that do that includes deaths in circumstances where the forced landing looked ideal. Fate can deal some very unkind blows and perfect fields can hide less than perfect obstacles that are invisible from 1,000 feet.

At the moment the statistical evidence is that the results after chute deployment approach a 100% surety of successful outcome.

So ignoring for one moment the actual circumstances which would you chose - a one in 5 chance of killing yourself or almost no chance?

Next a sensible pilot will factor in whether the particular circumstances of a forced landing distort the odds in favour of a better outcome without the chute. Lest we forget that decision needs to be taken pretty quickly, in reasonably or very stressful circumstances and not with the benefit of hind sight.

Does the field present any undue hazards,

Am I sure I can make the field and will not end up short, or long,

Do I regularly practice forced landings ( dare I say a Cirrus pilot may well not),

What impact might the wind have,

and most importantly,

taking everything into account am I sure I can beat the stats!

Beating stats is a dangerous game. Many think they can beat the stats of winning the lottery, but not many people would play Russian roulette with six bullets.

Lest we forget that is the choice that confronts every Cirrus pilot when the earth beckons.

Almost certainly the insurance companies want you to pull (and will question why you didnt if the outcome is less than good) (in the States they have taken to waving the excess where the chute is deployed), COPA pretty much wants you to pull, statistically you will need to justify why you didnt.

For all these reasons the decision is not as so often portrayed.

I find that most (and I agree not all) Cirrus pilots have had specialist training, well understand the decision they must make and few are the "amateurs" so often portrayed.

Until you have had an engine failure for real I don't think most pilots really appreciate the panic this can induce.

I don't think the comparison with glider pilots is reasonable. If you glide you are "doing" this sort of thing a lot of the time, air brakes and currency make a huge difference, never mind the lower landing speeds.

All I ask before we are so ready to criticise any pilot that pulls the chute is to at least ask of yourself the question what decision would you have taken - would you be so certain in the few minutes required to reach a decision that the outcome would be more successful with a forced landing. With hindsight you might have reached a different decision (I would love to see a picture of the field taken from the ground before I landed in it) but you don't have hindsight - the decisions needs to be taken now - later you may need to justify it.

In the case we are discussing the pilot doeskin need to justify the outcome. They both survived with very minor injuries, in the States the insurance company would have waived the excess, the aircraft could definitely fly again, the press haven't had a field day about another rich boy landing on a puppy farm and nearly wiping out the whole farm in a fireball, so everyone is happy except for a few that think they could have done a better job - but we will never know.

In short dont look at the photo in the papers, think about whole process and be certain if you can you WOULD have done a better job. If you are CERTAIN good for you, but lets hope you are never put to the test.

For me it is like some many real life situations, it is easy to talk the talk, it is easy to look at the photo, it is easy to say I could have done better - are you certain, absolutely certain you could have done better?

If you are certain I have total respect, if you think you would have done better but haven't asked yourself all of these questions (and others) then I dont respect your criticism.

[stickandrudderman]

Deeday, you see what you've started?
:8

[Pace]

Fuji

But then the flight manual should be less coy about the use of the chute! I am not sure about the manufacturer being scared of recommending the chute!
They can happily detail a forced landing with the addendum of if all looks bad CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Surely if your figures of 20% Likelyhood of death are true with 100% success with the chute the manufacturers are being negligent in detailing and recommending a forced landing?
Please supply a link to the 20% Fatlity rate in forced landings?
I know in the jet I fly we go to the manufacters Emergency checklist or flight manual for every emergency or performance detail.
I find it hard to understand why Cirrus are different and advice comes from outside bodies.
You maybe right

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

You do have this obsession with flight manuals ;).

You know as well as i that an emergency checklists relies on an OODA loop. Overcome the first three elements which can be difficult enough and if you have them right then the fourth element will at least in theory be the only logical step.

Cirrus could do that with the chute but cirrus would have to demonstrate they can substantiate the outcome. How could they do that when the poh was certified? There was no testing of chute to ground deployment and if there had been the cost would have prevented the aircraft ever flying. We have all been guinea pigs - only now have real life chute deployments started to give us statistcal evidence of whether or not it is better to deploy the chute and when. More evidence is needed although we hope isnt forthcoming.

Time will tell whether cirrus could stand in an america court and argue that if the first three elements of the OODA loop are correctly answered by the pilot then the fourth is the correct action. Until then as i have said before i dont see how you can expect cirrus to go further unless you want them to go bankcrupt at the lawyers hands the first time a chute is deployed and the outcome is less than successful.

[Deeday]

Deeday, you see what you've started?
:8
yep... could not resist, I had to post it :p
It was a serious question though. That story really strikes me as a waste of a G3, but you are right though: I might have ended up doing the same thing myself, in a similar situation (apart from the proud self-portrait in front of the wreck).

[A and C]

Be it a chute pull or a forced landing the chances of fixing the aircraft are about the same.

[Pace]

Be it a chute pull or a forced landing the chances of fixing the aircraft are about the same.

A&C

I think not!!! get a forced landing right and there have been many where the pilots await alongside a perfectly undamaged aircraft for assistance with the only cost moving the aircraft out of the field. On some occasions the aircraft has been flown out!
Pull the chute and the aircraft is severely damaged every time no question about that!

Fuji

Just to answer the post you made that I have been converted to the chute.

I always considered it to be a major advancement in aircraft safety.

Where I have moved is from regarding the chute on the Cirrus as one an aerobatic pilot or glider pilot would carry ie to abandon an unflyable aircraft! to appreciating it can be used in other ways.

I would not use the chute over flat land where there were open fields even if it meant hitting a hedge or fence.

I would not use the chute in strong winds! Once the chute is pulled you have lost control! Not only do you have a high vertical speed but you will mix that with a horizontal speed. We all know the damage a 30mph crash will cause to a car. Remember the car is far better designed for crash protection than an aircraft.
Far better to use those winds to your favor in a forced landing and subsequent low groundspeeds at touchdown.

I would not use the chute over built up areas where I could glide clear. We have no control over where the aircraft descends and have a responsibility to those on the ground.

I would not use the chute below 1000 ft agl hence its important to commit to a forced landing or chute pull.
Panicking at 300 feet and pulling the chute will result in a free fall and instant death.

I would use the chute with engine failure over dense forest or mountainous terrain.

I would use the chute if unwell where I felt I may pass out!

I would use the chute at night with an engine failure or over fog banks and a cloudbase known to be very low.
I would use it for bad icing!
Here is an important point which many fail to acknowledge.
The Chuted cirrus will without doubt encourage pilots into conditions that they or the aircraft should not be in!
I know without a shadow of a doubt that I would be very nervous flying a single piston at night out of gliding distance of an airport!
The Cirrus would change that for me and I would be a lot more comfortable with that get out of jail card in the unlikely but possible case of an engine failure.
I am sure as in one accident report pilots who are not current or capable in cloud would fly there on the same principal as being more comfortable at night with the chute.

Over water I am not sure. The undercarriage is a major absorber of the vertical impact into water you loose that.

This is the first standard production aircraft to come with a chute installed which changes what is possible with a conventional aircraft.
There is little direction from the manufacturers which leaves when to pull the chute in the hands of often inexperienced pilots. That is a dangerous way to proceed and there should be far more expert and approved guidance!
But that explains why the subject generates so much debate.

My last point is it worries me when technology is used to make up for a lack of basic skills rather than complimenting those basic skills.
There have been some accidents and chute pulls where you do question if the guy at the controls is a competent well trained pilot or some incompetent half baked idiot flying the aircraft.

[007helicopter]

There is little direction from the manufacturers which leaves when to pull the chute in the hands of often inexperienced pilots. That is a dangerous way to proceed and there should be far more expert and approved guidance!

Pace we are not that far apart, saying it is a dangerous way to proceed leaving it up to inexperienced pilots and there should be more approved guidance, I personally do not agree.

In a decade what has been dangerous about leaving it to inexperienced (or experienced) pilots?

The main danger is they do not pull the damn thing and crash and burn.

There have been some accidents and chute pulls where you do question if the guy at the controls is a competent well trained pilot or some incompetent half baked idiot flying the aircraft.

I do not think any more accidents than any other aircraft type and probably less due to half baked idiots (but certainly a few)

[Pace]

The main danger is they do not pull the damn thing and crash and burn.

Hence why there should be far more approved expert direction on the use of the chute.
I am sure as Fuji said that will come as more data comes from production test pulls rather than manufacturer test pulls ;)

I do not think any more accidents than any other aircraft type and probably less due to half baked idiots (but certainly a few)

There should be more education on the chute to guard against the chute encouraging pilots into conditions where they would normally not go in conventional aircraft otherwise you create the accident situations you are trying to protect against.
I am sure the above is a major factor in many of the chute pulls I have read

But the chute is an excellent potential life saver and will make more PAX happy to go on a flight especially if the pilot looks like a potential heart attack victim in the making :E As some do

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

I would use the chute with engine failure over dense forest or mountainous terrain.
In mountainous terrain, you might come down on a steep slope and slide, or swing into a slope as you descend. The recent Arizona Cirrus seems to have been swinging, and ended inverted on what looks like level terrain.
(I'm never likely to be able to afford a Cirrus, so for me it's academic)

[Pace]

Maoraigh1

That is the problem with any chute pull! with an engine failure you are throwing away control of the aircraft and are in the lap of the Gods as to where you come down or on who or what?

Hence I would guard against the idea that it is an answer to all evils but is an extra tool if used with thought.

Pace

[007helicopter]

In mountainous terrain, you might come down on a steep slope and slide, or swing into a slope as you descend. The recent Arizona Cirrus seems to have been swinging, and ended inverted on what looks like level terrain.

The Arizona pull was over fairly level ground, was not in mountains or swinging but a fairly straightforward pull after engine failure.

As I understand it the pilot encouraged the chute to inflate on the ground to visually help SAR services who were having trouble locating him.

Eventually he was rescued and was about 1/2 a mile from the plane and the first responders insisted he was taken to hospital for some checks and reassured him they would stow or cut the chute, which did not happen and later a gust of wind caught it and flipped the aircraft over.

The chute once on the ground is a potential hazard in high winds but also being bright orange makes a great extra visual locater both in the sea and on ground for SAR.

[abgd]

Surely if your figures of 20% Likelyhood of death are true with 100% success with the chute the manufacturers are being negligent in detailing and recommending a forced landing?
Please supply a link to the 20% Fatlity rate in forced landings?

I once went through the NTSB database looking at engine failure fatality rates for different types of aircraft. I don't recall the numbers, but if you were flying a Long-EZ your chances of surviving a forced landing off the airport were quite low - less than 50% as I recall. In a Piper cub, the chances of survival were an order of magnitude better, as you would imagine. I would imagine they'd be somewhere in between for a Cirrus.

[Pace]

And we are worried about deadsticking a Cirrus

:ugh:Deadstick landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing)

Wimps ? :{

Pace

[A and C]

It is the numbers that indicate the chances of getting a reparable Cirrus from a chute pull or a forced landing are more or less the same.

I have no doubt that a well executed forced landing would result in zero damage but even that is a nice little job if you have to recover the aircraft from the field.

Interestingly some numbers that I saw from the USA suggest that he odds of surviving a SEP forced landing are the same night or day ! That has to say something about the pilot skill level.

[Pace]

A&E

I also remember reading somewhere that the chances of serious injury / death from a forced landing where the pilot keeps the airceaft flying rather than stalling in was very small hence I wanted a link to official figures as we are all dishing out rumor not fact to reinforce an argument.

Pace

[A and C]

I do have some sympathy with your opinion that some of what is being said is simply rumour but with the very small number of Cirrus accidents there is not enough data for anything else, so far reparable Cirrus aircraft have usually been the result of overrunning the end of the runway with one chute deployment.

The biggest problem is getting to the a aircraft before some fool who knows nothing about composite structures and cuts the thing up assuming that it is a write off and so ensuring it becomes one.

On one occasion a DA40 was written off with damage that would have taken a few weeks to fix and on another occasion we arrived to find that some idiot had taken to the wing pin retaining locks with a saw ! Fortunately we prevented further damage and that aircraft is back in the air.

It is in the interest of all that repairable aircraft are not scrapped if only to keep the insurance costs down.

[Pace]

It is in the interest of all that repairable aircraft are not scrapped if only to keep the insurance costs down.

A&C

Agreed on the above but it is not in the interest of the owner. As you know aircraft with an accident history go for peanuts well repaired or otherwise.

Who will buy a Cirrus which has had a chute deployment and subsequent crash and rebuild? The bargain hunters with no cash to own a Cirrus and thats it!
Such aircraft tend to then go on with avionic problems in the future etc after such a shock loading even if the units appear fine at the time.

So it very much suits the owner to have the aircraft written off.

Pace

[A and C]

I have to disagree about the sale price of aircraft that have been repaired by reputable companies, the sale price usually firms up after about a year when the market has forgotten that the aircraft had an accident and has seen it flying for a while.

As for your statement that the aircraft will have all sorts of problems with avionics that is just uninformed rumour of the sort that you accused some on this forum using with accident statistics. The fact of the matter is that avionics are built to withstand shipping by the likes of UPS & FedEx and they will get a far harder time in the sorting sheds than they get landing in an aircraft that is reparable.

[Pace]

I have to disagree about the sale price of aircraft that have been repaired by reputable companies, the sale price usually firms up after about a year when the market has forgotten that the aircraft had an accident and has seen it flying for a while.

A&C

The maintenance records will not forget!!
So if you were looking to buy a Cirrus and of the many you looked at for sale you would happily buy one which had had a chute pull and substantial damage in the crash landing that followed?
The ones that you looked at with one owner and well maintained with a good service history you would put on par with the accident damaged aircraft and pay similar money for both?
I have been around aircraft long enough to know that is not the case! Even if the aircraft has an excellent rebuild it still carries a stigma which drops it to the bottom of the pile as an attractive purchase.
The purchaser has to look at the fact that even though he intends to keep the aircraft for many years what if he has to sell it next year for one reason or another?
He has purchased someones problem! If that problem is not well covered in the purchase price he knows he is in for a big loss moving it on!
Sadly it may have an exceptional rebuild but it holds a STIGMA which will not go for many years ahead.

I also have held a share in an aircraft which was accident damaged by one of the members!after that we had no end of avionics problems coincidence or otherwise? When we sold it it was at a substantial loss sadly for us.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I agree. In reality I would think twice about buying anything involved in a major accident - be it aircraft, boat or car. If I did I would expect the price to reflect the accident.

It maybe unjustified but it is that uncertainty that comes with any major structural repairs.

[A and C]

No one knows better than I that the records will always show the work that has been done but it is far better than getting an aircraft with repairs properly recorded rather than an aircraft with a spotless record that has had bad repairs that have not recorded.

As I have said the price of a repaired aircraft usually takes a hit in the first year but recovers once it has a few hours of flying under its belt.

Quite frankly the glider pilots reading this thread will be laughing uncontrollably at the attitude you are showing with regard to composite structural repairs, in the gliding world the type of repair we are talking about is commonplace and certenly Carries no stigma as they have been operating composite structures far longer than the powerd flight world and know the score.

I think your attitude stems from the world of car repairs were there is little quality control. It is unlikely that you would fit a set or re-tredded tyres to your car, but in the aviation world airliner tyres are retreaded 16 to 20 times before the tyre is scrapped, all because the quality control is maintained.

If are lucky you can find a top of the range aircraft that has been repaired you will get it for a good price and it will perform as well as a new aircraft and as it ages the price will recover compared to the market, the only thing you have to steer clear of when selling is those who have been blinded by the " no damage history" bull of the aircraft dealers, because that is exactly what it is.... No damage HISTORY, not no damage.

[Pace]

A&C

I totally agree with you that a fantastic job may be made on composites and that you will have a very nice aircraft.
But a Cirrus slamming into the ground at the descent rate quoted under the chute will suffer substantial damage and shock loading.
It is not the case of a glider scraping a wingtip or scratching the underside on a rock.
We are talking about an aircraft which is substantially damaged and I am afraid although I want to agree that the value should hold I know the reality which is no one will want that aircraft unless it comes at a bargain basement price.
Common sense dictates that faced with a choice of 10 aircraft for sale would I or you realistically consider a severely damaged well repaired aircraft against the others for sale unless you are a cash strapped buyer who is looking for a cheap Cirrus.
Sadly its not about quality of repair but STIGMA and it is several years not one before that aircraft will close the gap again.

Pace

[172driver]

Sadly its not about quality of repair but STIGMA and it is several years not one before that aircraft will close the gap again.

Pace, it doesn't have to. If you buy it a discount to the market of, say 30% and then sell it on a couple of years hence with the same discount (or potentially less), then it's effectively a zero-sum game. You bought below market and re-sold below market. In A&C's scenario you might even be quids in if holding the a/c for long enough.

[Pace]

172

Totally agree with that!

Pace

[A and C]

I don't think that you understand the level of composite repair that is carried out, it's not about scraping a wing tip or a rock running under the aircraft, that is child's play, fixing broken wing spars and the like are the interesting jobs.

As for the money side of this 172driver is nearer the mark.

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

While I agree with you, Pace is also correct - perceptions take time to change and people remain wary of severely damaged aircraft, boats or cars, perhaps not least because they don't understand just how good the repairs can be. That said I am also aware of some composite repairs to the structure of the undercarriage of DA42s that didn't go too well - who was a fault could be debatable, but it is still indicative that even in the aircraft industry there are no absolute guarantees. You will doubtless also be aware of the problems Corvalis had before being taken over by Cessna.

I think it is reasonable to say that working with composites and particularly some of the "newer" composites is highly complex requiring tight control of the layup environment, of the materials and of the techniques. Put simply, there is room for error.

[A and C]

I would be interested to hear more about the DA42 landing gear repairs that went wrong, it was unlikely to have been due to mistakes at the factory who would have issued the drawings for such work, I would guess that it was a quality control issue by the people doing the work.

Unfortunatly a lot of the composite issues are not understood by the GA industry who are by and large metal centric, this metal influence could clearly be seen in the Boeing composite repair manual that Cirrus in the early days based their repair practices on. Cirrus have now moved on and are using techniques and practices that offer both a stronger and lighter repair than the Boeing system offered ( with the 787 Boeing must also have moved on !!)

You are correct about the quality control issues both in the lay up, cure and post cure stages. Also when the lay up is of a particularly critical component a test sample is made ( just as at original manufacture) and this is sent for the same destruction testing by the aircraft manufacturers that new components test samples receive.

[007helicopter]

I have to disagree about the sale price of aircraft that have been repaired by reputable companies, the sale price usually firms up after about a year when the market has forgotten that the aircraft had an accident and has seen it flying for a while.

I tend to agree closer to you A&C, what I have personally witnessed is properly repaired Cirrus aircraft do take a knock of around 10% if you generally compare to the market, certainly not peanuts or 30% cheaper. As time goes on the relevance is still a factor but softens.

Also out of the 39 Cirrus Caps pulls 9 are flying again, so lets call it 25%, they will have been repaired to a very high standard.

You could argue a Cirrus has never yet had to 2 pulls, so the repaired aircraft to date have a 100% safety record:E

Also the business about avionics suffering from the impact of a Caps pull, I am yet to here any evidence of this being reality.

[Pace]

Figures are meaningless it's simply supply and demand! Something is worth what someone will pay.
007 you for arguments sake are buying a Cirrus.You have 10 you are looking at ? The Top dollar ones are well specked, kept in Hangers. One owner,No damage History and low hours.
Your engineer checks one of them ! That aircraft had a chute pull, landed at high force and was extensively damaged! It has been well rebuilt.
Would you buy it any where near the price of the others?
I would not unless it was substantially cheaper to such an extent that I felt sure if I sold her next year my money was secure!
You are buying someone's problem which then becomes your problem!
What is someone's problem worth to you ?


Pace

[A and C]

This is just your view that it is a problem, yes there is a price difference but not as big as you seem to think.

As I have previously said if you buy an aircraft that has just been fixed by a reputable company you can be sure that It has been inspected to a level that you could never achieve when getting a pre-buy inspection on an aircraft advertised as having no damage history. One of the biggest problems with composites is that bad repairs can be covered up and will only be found with deep expert inspection.

In a lot of ways buying a well repaired aircraft is less of a risk than buying one that has been advertised as having no damage history and it will be cheaper and you will know exactly what you are getting.

It all boils down to ensuring that the no damage history aircraft that you are putting such faith in is really a no damage aircraft.

[007helicopter]

You have 10 you are looking at ? The Top dollar ones are well specked, kept in Hangers. One owner,No damage History and low hours.
Your engineer checks one of them ! That aircraft had a chute pull, landed at high force and was extensively damaged! It has been well rebuilt.
Would you buy it any where near the price of the others?

Pace I am just basing my opinion on 3 damaged and repaired Cirrus that I personally know the full history and eventual sale prices.

There are plenty on the market at the moment and yes it is very competitive but the figure I mention is what I have seen broadly achieved for one CAPS repaired aircraft, one tail strike, and one run off the end of a runway and quite substantially damaged. No doubt there is a reduction in pricing but in my actual experience closer to A&C's figures.

At the end of the day anything is worth what the market will pay on the day, I fully accept that.

All three of the aircraft I am referring to are 100% fine after several years of operation, with a very high standard of repair and even to the extent on 2 of them Cirrus fully approved the repairs and kept existing warranties in place.

I think the final price would be also relevant to who carried out the repairs and the history of the repair.

[Weheka]

Just getting back to the "stats" regarding your chances of surviving a forced landing after engine failure in this case, or deploying the chute.

"As of 22 November 2012, the CAPS has been activated 32 times with 63 survivors and 11 fatalities in equipped aircraft." Wiki.

They say in all cases where the CAPS was activated within operating limits everyone survived, hence the 100% safety record. They don't seem to count the fatality(s) in one accident where the launch rocket malfunctioned?

I imagine the NTSB data base which someone referred to, in which it gives a 1 in 5 chance of a fatality, would be based on thousands of cases over many years.

Is it a fair to say deploying the chute, rather than carrying out a normal forced landing, is always the safest option based on these one sided statistics?

Personally my old school thinking and training would have me attempting to land the aircraft, I think I would go for the chute option only in the most hopeless situation. (not that I will ever find myself in a CAPS equipped Cirrus anyway)

I have no problem with the pilot deploying the chute in this case, his decision and they both walked away, can't argue with that, but others may have landed the aircraft with an equally good outcome. It's just the stats I have trouble accepting.

[Piper.Classique]

It might be interesting to find the statistics on chute pulls in microlights, where the parachute is actually a rather frequent factory option (at least here in France). Of course the reason for fitting a parachute might just be the 25 kilos extra mauw allowed for a parachute that typically weighs under 12 kilos. Certainly I haven't heard of many being used in anger, most microlights being rather easy to land in a field in the case of engine failure.

[LTCTerry]

All,

I had a similar situation in an Arrow a number of years ago. What I though was the perfect farmers field like several others around turned out to be an area where pine trees had been clear cut with stumps and burned (burnt?) remains covering the ground. By the time I was close enough to truly evaluate the field it was too late. The aircraft was totaled, but I was fine.

See my web page for more info and pictures: Terry Pitts - N47944 made its last flight (http://nscale160.com/arrow/)

I called my wife to come get me, "I haven't been arrested, but I'm at the sheriff's office, please come get me..."

forty-five minutes earlier I had eaten ice cream with my dad and kids before heading out on a planned two-hour cross-country for an Army Reserve weekend. My wife called my retired-fighter-pilot dad to say she would be late picking up the kids because she had to go get me. My dad obviously knew something had gone wrong.

Any guesses to what went wrong before I share the unfortunately too often repeated mistake? This mistake leads to fatalities in about 50 percent of the cases. In my case, I had planned a night flight, but the airplane came available earlier so I left earlier. Imagine...

Terry

[Pace]

Terry

If you can do such a good job of forcelanding there think what you would have done in a proper field :ok: Well done

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

Looking at those pictures, I'm wondering if the gear was down for that landing.

[007helicopter]

Terry excellent outcome and sounds like you were in control flying it all the way down:ok:

I guess a typical example of how difficult it is to tell what is a suitable landing surface. Which is what forms the basis of my SOP of using the chute when an off airfield landing is required.

This is the reason I 100% support the actions of the Pilot in this thread.:D

[007helicopter]

"As of 22 November 2012, the CAPS has been activated 32 times with 63 survivors and 11 fatalities in equipped aircraft." Wiki.

Wiki slightly out of date this was number 39 as far as Cirrus concerned and the success rate is 100% to date when operated within limits.

Clearly this success rate can not last but for me it is good enough and even if success of forced landings is lets say 90% I do not wish to play Russian Roulette with a 1 in 10 chance of serious injury or death when I fly an aircraft with BRS.

[RatherBeFlying]

The big advantage gliders have is that you have a lot more time to examine and select fields. Yes, a good looking field at 1000' is not always so good once you get up close and personal.

In an a/c with a high landing speed and small wheels, the probability of a noseover increases.

But the fatality rate of EF accidents may perhaps be overstated as it's not an accident if the aircraft is not damaged. In fact EFs where the a/c is landed without damage are not reportable; so, we do not have a good statistic.

Now if you would be willing to do a high speed taxi on or even takeoff from a field with a certain crop at a known stage of growth, you would have one type of field suitable for a forced landing. Most such fields work much better when you have bigger wheels and lower landing speeds than a Cirrus. Unless you are well acquainted with the local agriculture and used to landing in fields, CAPS can be a viable way to slant the odds in your favor.

[EclipseN99XG]

New here.
Flying an Eclipse jet.
Previously owned 2 Cirrus.
Glider pilot.

Learning how to quote...
Dear 007helicopter,
1.5 years ago: "Clearly this success rate can not last "

It has lasted!

As of 19 April 2014
43 CAPS Save Events
With 87 survivors (9 serious injuries, 7 minor injuries, 67 uninjured) and 1 fatality (the one at low altitude)

[funfly]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft. and your first concern is the resale value of your aircraft? get real.

Your first concern must be the best way to conserve the life of you and your passenger.

There are options available to you but, unless you are within gliding distance of a landing strip, the one that offers the best chance is pulling the chute - this is the option that will give you the best chance of retaining your life.

[maxred]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft

Well I fly an old school plane, that is not fitted with BRS, so, I plan for best glide speed, and look at where I am going to put it, with some faith in my ability to get it down.

On the way, if I have time, I will attempt to start it again and rescue the situation.

But then I am old school......

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft
Over East Anglia that quite often gives you a choice of several runways. Some of them miles long, if you don't mind having a discussion with the military after landing.

[Mach Jump]

Your first concern must be the best way to conserve the life of you and your passenger.............pulling the chute - this is the option that will give you the best chance of retaining your life.

No it isn't.

My best option is to find out why the engine has failed and restart it.

My second best option is to make a glide approach to a nearby airport.

MY third best option is to make a glide approach to a suitable landing site in a large field, such as the one that the subject of the OP finally ended up in.

If, at around 1000' none of the above options are available, only then would I even consider giving up all control over the outcome and resorting to a BRS.


MJ:ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

You are definitely old school, MachJump, very much so! Quite correct, of course.

[Mach Jump]

Thankyou Jan.;)


MJ:ok:

[horizon flyer]

Having lost the engine at 750ft AGL it was 1.5miles and 60 seconds that was 10 secs to check & think 50sec to execute. Was a 200 degree left turn to a suitable field, that was short but had a longer one over the hedge, which I ended up in.

The last thing on my mind was saving the aircraft. She end up with a couple of dents in leading edge of the port wing chopping down a willow bush.

Thoughts in my head, don't stall it in on approach, keep up the speed.
Better to run into the far hedge at low speed. Also if I got it right I had a better than 50/50 chance of walking away.

5000ft would give you a lot of time to check, think and position for a chute pull or forced landing. So I think he may have panicked a bit and 1minute is a bit quick.

I would have liked ATC to have run through an emergence check list, I think this should be standard procedure, as I lost a friend who attempted a turn back after an EFOT at 300ft, stalled it in from 100ft due to low airspeed.

[shortstripper]

I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).
All the time you have control of the aeroplane, your fate is in your hands. Once you pull the handle and deploy the chute you have lost it! :ugh:

I've had three engine failures of which one ended with a forced landing in a field. The other two were on climb out (probably where engine failure is most likely btw). They were both partial and both ended by landings on the airfield. I've also landed out in gliders a couple of times and regularly fly into fields electively.

Yes I'd pull the chute in certain conditions, but it would be last resort!!! I'm confident in my ability to walk away from a forced landing from a height where I had thinking time ... any less and the chute would probably be of no use anyway! Over confident? ... I honestly don't think so!

SS

[Crash one]

If this aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin except by pulling the chute then it is seriously badly designed, and should not be in service. The mindset of "pull the chute at the first sign of trouble reflects a rubbish training regime.Most spin fatals happen at low level (below the safe pull height) all chute pulls seem to result in serious damage to the aircraft.
I would suggest that the manufacturers re think this.
1) make the rocket capable of arresting the decent at low level & capable of pulling the aircraft upright .
2) The chute should be able to land the aircraft at a speed well within the safe loading of the gear, causing no damage whatsoever.
3) It should be steerable with the chute deployed rather like a paramotor. If the engine still functions it would allow the "pilot" to put it down next to the pub.

[abgd]

I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).

In some aircraft, it almost certainly is. Around 50% of off-airport landings in a Long-EZ result in a fatality. For a Piper Cub, you're literally orders of magnitude more likely to walk away. From your moniker I assume you're more likely to be flying something with a low wing loading.

[Jonzarno]

If this aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin except by pulling the chute then it is seriously badly designed

As has been posted on here many times, a full programme of standard spin recovery testing was part of the EASA certification of the SR series. :ugh:

The mindset of "pull the chute at the first sign of trouble reflects a rubbish training regime

The training regime does NOT reflect that. :ugh:

It DOES integrate the chute into emergencies handling and encourages it's use based on the unarguable statistics of its success in saving peoples lives: again, as has been posted here many times, there have been far to many people killed with a perfectly good chute undeployed behind them.

[dera]

Unarguable statistics?

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.

[mary meagher]

Having a quick squint at the comprehensive summary supplied by dera, certainly quite a few hint at pilot incompetence....but the news that leaped to my attention in the list of chute pulls in the Cirrus is HOW MANY WERE INSPIRED BY ENGINE 'LOSS OF POWER'!

What kind of engine do they use that fails so often!

The critical moment for engine failure and the one that leads to fatality is EFATO when engine power fades on takeoff, not necessarily quits! and the pilot makes the decision to turn back to the airport. Spin in follows. Rather too low for the Cirrus get you out of trouble deployment, isn't it?

Now waiting for all those with a financial interest in this expensive toy to sound off!

[Jonzarno]

Mary

It's a Continental 550 in the SR22. I believe it's fitted to a number of other aircraft as well but I don't have any information on failure rates.

[Jonzarno]

Unarguable statistics?

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx

This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.



Dera

The statistics are very clear: employed within demonstrated limits, there have been no fatalities amongst pilots using the chute. By contrast there have been several fatal accidents amongst Cirrus pilots who tried to stretch glides or make off airport landings.

I know that MOST off airport landings are successful. But not all of them e.g.

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/2B31A8A2-6642-44F3-9B8F-BDED78CC8CE1/118856/2011_042_A_ENG.pdf

Summary: DA20, engine failure, off airport PFL, apparently experienced instructor, 300 hours in type, aircraft with much lower stall speed than a Cirrus, two people killed. It's by no means the only example.

By contrast, as set out above, NO fatalities in within parameters CAPS deployments.

Your point about revoking licences is interesting.

There are about 5500 Cirrus flying and some people buying them, especially second hand, don't get proper transition training. They are, however, IMHO, a minority. Equally, there are bad pilots flying other types as well but that doesn't mean all pilots of those types are stupid or incompetent either.

Cirrus pilots have no monopoly on incompetence or stupidity.

I would suggest, however, that the penalty for stupidity or incompetence should not be death for the pilot and even less so for any passengers on board.

At least the pilots you criticise would be around to have their licence revoked if that was appropriate. There's not much point in revoking the licence of someone who is dead.....

[Jonzarno]

Mary

Following on from my earlier post: one factor that seems to come up more often than it should is Maintenance Induced Failure. Coincidentally, this report on a CAPS save was released yesterday:

ERA12LA473 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120723X43615&key=1)

An extract from it:

"Examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft was fractured and that the crankcase exhibited varying degrees of fretting and lock-slot elongation on the main bearing supports, which is consistent with the application of insufficient torque on the cylinder through-bolts by maintenance personnel. New cylinders had been installed on the engine 113 hours before the accident. Because the cylinders were loose, the oil supply at the No. 2 main journal was shut off and the crankshaft broke, which resulted in the subsequent loss of oil pressure to the engine."

The full report is well worth a read both from the point of view of the cause and from the account it gives of the pilot's decision making process.

[shortstripper]

Quote:

I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).

In some aircraft, it almost certainly is. Around 50% of off-airport landings in a Long-EZ result in a fatality. For a Piper Cub, you're literally orders of magnitude more likely to walk away. From your moniker I assume you're more likely to be flying something with a low wing loading.

Yes I totally understand your point and I certainly wouldn't fancy a forced landing in a typical homebuilt canard with their spindly little undercarriages. (In fact I'd probably elect to land wheels up in their case?) And yes, I do mostly fly low wing loaded aircraft, but not exclusively. However, I don't believe any pilot should consider a forced landing as a crash waiting to happen though, and I don't believe it is! Without thinking too hard I know of two forced landings in airliners where the pilots didn't think that way and pulled off perfect forced landings with no fatalities. Are Cirrus's harder to force land than airliners???

SS

SS

[Jonzarno]

Are Cirrus's harder to force land than airliners???

No, they aren't. They are no harder or easier than any other SEP. But still people die trying to do forced landings as demonstrated by the report I posted earlier.

Of course, that wasn't a Cirrus so here's another example. This is a reaction to a Cirrus fatal accident by a close friend of the pilot. As you can see from it, he was pretty upset.

It was originally posted on COPA as part of a debate about CAPS: happily a debate that is finished in that community.

This accident is not the only forced landing fatal in a Cirrus. There has yet to be a fatal accident under correctly deployed CAPS.

The pilot involved was called Manfred Stolle and he died trying to stretch a glide to make an airport. Nobody knows why he didn't pull.....

Quote:

Manfred and I flew our planes to Charleston, SC where Mason picked us up for lunch. Manfred and I would fly somewhere every month or so. Leaving the Charleston FBO ramp we shook hands and I took off first.

I was the last to see him alive.

I heard Departure clear him to 6,500’. A few minutes later I tried to contact him on the agreed 122.75 but got no response. He reported smoke in the cockpit, but I didn’t hear it as I had moved on to the next controller. I flew on to Asheville and learned of his demise at 5pm when Mason called. Mason knew when Manfred’s wife Barbara called him saying the police had come to her house with the news. I flew to the airport of the crash yesterday. Manfred crashed on the airport property, in line with the runway and only a couple hundred yards away. It appears he stalled just after clearing trees adjacent to the airport. The debris field is small. The PFD was pushed back into his face. A witness said the prop wasn’t turning and Mason says the FAA confirmed that, so maybe an engine failure. Why didn’t he pull the chute; was the engine partially operating until short final?

Today I read the COPA posts debating parachute use and it now all sounds so naïve: “If you have control of the plane fly it and land it.” In fact though, you fly the plane while you have control, then you don’t and you die. Manfred had the runway made, then he didn’t. 3 seconds. Had he turned to the field 3 seconds sooner, or climbed to glide speed 3 seconds sooner, . . . How can we possibly make all the right decisions in that situation, the entire episode lasting only a few minutes?

Manfred Stolle was a good pilot. He approached flying with the detached methodical approach as any good German would. He used checklists, he had the hours, he flew regularly, he attended CDMs and other training courses, and he regularly flew with an instructor. He took care of his equipment. He was a better pilot than many of us.

I in no way believe my piloting skills are superior to Manfred’s. I believe and hope this has taught me to see the parachute as a “why not” option rather than a “why” option; a first resort rather than a last resort. I hope you take away the same lesson.

I read posts here from confident (and arrogant and naïve) pilots telling us it’s a mistake to pull the chute when you still have most control over the plane. No engine is no control to me, but not to these people. They tell us which square foot of the runway we should be aiming for our dead stick landing, as if that tidbit of wisdom will make all the difference.

Well, STOP IT.

It is not the percentage play and it is not necessary. You are doing a disservice to the majority of pilots reading COPA. We’re not commercial pilots or military pilots; we’re businessmen and accountants and doctors and software designers who fly 125 hours a year. You are just baiting us into a trap with a high likelihood of an unfortunate outcome.

A parachute pull is the right choice 95% of the time when some control is lost. Boiled down to its essence the decision isn’t as complicated as we make it out to be. You may a) pull the chute and you will live and the insurance company will buy you a new airplane, or b) risk your life to land the plane and get to keep the plane you currently have. Where’s the upside in this choice?

Perhaps the “fly it” advocates believe they are selling a point of view for the 5% situation, but that’s not the way our discussions here read, as evidenced by the folks floating convoluted emergency tactics (as below). If we want to debate the nuances of “well, what if I am over the Everglades and there are alligators down there”, fine, let’s do, it’s a fun mental exercise. But let’s not pretend that we shouldn’t have a damned good reason not to put the chute and be alive when we reach the ground. Perhaps our energies should go towards that exception list: cold water or alligators, consider your other options. Think you might be able to glide to an airport, pull the chute.

Others here are sincerely trying to work out an emergency strategy: “I will still consider an attempted landing but I personally need 200' altitude buffer and 1,000 ft per nm from the airport for a straight in landing (adding 10% to that for every 10 knots of headwind). I'll add 800' to that if I have to make a 90 degree turn, and 1600' if I need to turn 180 degrees.”

The engine explodes. The cockpit goes quiet. Adrenaline floods the brain. You are shocked at the speed the earth is racing toward you as you fight to stabilize at 87 knots. So you pick a close airport, determine its altitude and begin running through these math quizzes, knowing that a mistake by a few seconds may cost you your life. Are you really willing to bet your life you can pull this off? Really?

Pull the chute. It is proven that the chute is the best choice. Mr. Beach has the statistics. Your logic and rationalization do not trump data. It’s a fact. And these facts tell us conclusively that your chance of living to tell about it is much greater under the chute.

So, when you have a loss of control emergency, or see one coming, pick the best available spot of earth, descend to 1500’ or so, slow to 100 kts or so, and pull the chute. On the ride down tell ATC where to come get you. On landing get out of the plane, call your family and tell them you love them. Call the insurance company and tell them where THEIR airplane is. Then post your experience on COPA and allow me to call you a Hero and tell you that I am in awe of your exquisite judgment.

UNQUOTE

[abgd]

But how many airliners have landed off-airport without the result being a controlled crash?

I normally fly at 2-3000 feet; airliners fly at 30k plus. This gives them a much greater chance of there being an airfield within gliding distance, assuming it's over a land-mass when the failure occurs.

I normally fly over rural Wales, where to be honest I would hope to survive a forced landing with my life, but be quite surprised to fly the aircraft again.

[shortstripper]

Hudson river?

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this No engine is no control to me, but not to these people. approach!

I don't consider myself arrogant or ignorant. I'm not highly experienced but I am reasonably experienced. I learnt to fly gliders before powered aeroplanes so maybe that helped me realise that an aeroplane will fly once the donkey quits! That said, I don't think power only pilots are ignorant of that fact either but it does seem to frighten some!
On the Cirrus site they seem have an excuse for every failed deployment saying it was "outside the envelope" .... ok, I accept that. Funny though, how Cirrus seem to be developing into one of the highest fatality light aircraft? Maybe they are just attracting a lot of pilots who really are fatalistic and think "I can just pull the chute if I get into trouble"? Ok this might work in the right circumstances but many such pilots seem ill equipped to then deal with the times when those circumstances are not right.

So ... Why is the fatality rate so high in this "safe" aeroplane? I don't really blame the aeroplane btw.

SS

[Ds3]

I have a question here, from a very green PPL.

We're all aware of the 'land clear' rule so we stay at an appropriate height above built up areas in order to allow a glide to a clear space if the donkey quits.

So if the worst happens and the pilot pops the chute, the plane descends in to a built up area and whilst those onboard are ok, someone on the ground dies. Who's responsible?

Has the pilot breached the 'land clear' rule by not allowing adequate air to glide clear under control of the BRS? Should the pilot have sacrificed the BRS option and attempted a forced landing or was he right to pull the chute regardless of the consequences?

The morally correct answer and legally correct one here may not be the same?

[shortstripper]

Very interesting question Ds3

In most cases an emergency trumps all legal rules in an effort to save lives ... But in the scenario you describe, I wonder?

SS

[Jonzarno]

Shorttripper

Your life, your choice.

Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.

I am not going to spend the time trying to convince you of that: we have been through all this before in a thread which got locked (the Cheltenham CAPS pull) and where Rick Beach was subjected to a barrage of abuse when he did publish the data so, if you can be bothered, go look there.

The reason I post in these arguments is only because there are inexperienced Cirrus pilots out there who may not have had proper transition training and may have the same attitude as you. I don't want them to die with a perfectly good chute behind them.

[shortstripper]

Shorttripper

Your life, your choice.

Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.

Yes it is my life and so far my real facts are these ... As I said I've had three engine failures and three perfectly successful forced landings resulting in no loss of live or damage to the aircraft. Two would have been inappropriate for a BRS deployment so having a chute would have made no difference unless I was stupid enough to have assumed otherwise. The other was well within the remit of a deployment but IMHO of no real drama. I was at around 2000' and it was August in the UK with loads of big recently combined wheat fields below. I'd have happily force landed any light aircraft in one and can't believe any half decent pilot would do otherwise???

If I'd been flying at night, in IMC, over a mountain range or similar, then YES YES YES!!! ... I'm no luddite! I'd pull the bloody handle! I can see the benefits of fluttering down under a parachute as the chances of survival are much better (though not guaranteed whatever the statistics say!). However, over open fields at height with a perfectly serviceable engineless light aircraft? .... I'll trust my own proven statistics thankyou very much!

SS

[Jonzarno]

As I said: your life, your choice.....

I hope you continue to be as successful in the future.

[mary meagher]

Jonzarno, there is not much information on your potted biography: PPL, IR, and thats about it. How many hours have you flown? in what aircraft? and why are you so very passionate about the Cirrus? I presume you own one?
Do you have the agency as well?

Those of us who had to fly without being able to take out a second mortgage have had to trim our sails to the wind. We don't fly in the Rocky Mountains without some pretty good information on the terraine. We maintain situational awareness. We keep current and informed. And perhaps most important, if conditions get worse, we will say sod it and do a 180.

I have flown light aircraft in the USA, the UK, France, and Spain. I have flown gliders in the Cairngorns, in the Black Mountains in Wales, and in the Alps. We do wear parachutes in the glider; that's because we fly very close indeed to other gliders and to the rock face. And we don't worry about engine trouble...havn't got one!

As for the typical Cirrus pilot, you mention "businesmen, accountants, doctors and softwear designers who fly 125 hours a year"

I would be very surprised if the busy professionals listed above actually manage to accumulate that many hours....

Seems to me that the life saving Cirrus rocket launched parachute is lulling these wealthy busy people into the illusion that money can buy safety. Doesn't help if you fly into crap weather beyond your ability, or hit another aircraft because you didn't keep a good lookout, or flew when you were tired or hungover or mad at your wife. Engine failure is the only problem that the Cirrus chute can cure, and for that you have to be at the required altitude.

We had a gormless pilot in a tree not far from Banbury who pulled his cirrus chute when he got preoccupied punching in data in his computer to
perform a 180 turn because the weather was getting worse! and he found himself in a very unusual attitude. Probably tired, in a hurry to get home.
He spent quite a while in the tree before the locals helped him down.

[Jonzarno]

Mary

In answer to the questions you asked.

I have been flying since 2006 and have a total of 1300 odd hours, just over 1200 of them in my SR22. I flew 260 hours last year although my normal rate over the last few years is about 200.

I do have an IR and most of my flying is IFR.

I don't have "the agency" as you put it, or any other commercial link to Cirrus and, in the past have been strongly critical of them on the COPA forum.

I don't see myself as "passionate" about Cirrus per se: I am very passionate about safety and don't want inexperienced Cirrus pilots to be put off using a proven life saver by things they read on forums like this. Especially when those statements are demonstrably inaccurate.

I'm not 100% sure from your description of the "gormless pilot", but I'm pretty sure I know which deployment that was. If I'm right, this was a VFR pilot flying a Cirrus SRV (i.e not IFR equipped) who had a VMC into IMC incident.

As we both know all to well, incidents of that type are one of the biggest killers of GA pilots and I think it's infinitely preferable for this pilot to have pulled the chute and have to face being called "gormless" than the alternative.

I recall a Cirrus fatal accident at South Bend Indiana where a VFR pilot got into exactly this situation and killed himself and two children.

Engine failure is far from the only problem the chute can help with (it doesn't actually "cure" anything!). Off the top of my head, not referring to the record so not a comprehensive list, actual, real CAPS saves to date have included structural failure (broken flap hinge), VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset, pilot incapacitation.

This last one saved the family of a pilot who died at the controls, I think of a heart attack.

Let's also put the deployment parameters into context.

The POH says that the maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 Knots and the altitude 2000 feet.

There have actually been successful deployments at 400 feet and at speeds ranging from 34 Knots (inverted!) to 186 knots.

So no, it's not a magic reset button but it has saved an awful lot of lives. The other side of the coin is that there have been far to many Cirrus pilots killed when the chute would almost certainly have saved them.

And not all "gormless" pilots: Manfred Stolle was, by all accounts, a damn good pilot and he still died. As I said in my earlier post, nobody knows why he didn't pull and live.

[dera]

"VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset" seem to happen more often to Cirrus pilots than others.
Here's why I think that is (I only have flown a SR20, I believe SR22 is similar in its design philosophy?).

Cirrus is very much a procedurally operated airplane, as opposed to other more conservative planes produced by Piper and such. It has very little to no feedback to pilot apart from the instruments on what the plane is currently doing. Quiet cabin, no real feedback through controls and so on. Alot of the flying is done using autopilot (which is worrying, there are many CAPS "saves" caused by autopilot induced problems).

For a less experienced pilot, you can easily slowly end up being badly behind the airplane.

On a surprising situation (such as uncommanded autopilot action etc) and a pilot without considerable hand-flying experience, it is very difficult to get back ahead of the airplane. That is why many of the CAPS "saves" are due to simply losing control of the airplane.

This is my opinion, happy to hear why it's wrong :)

[Mach Jump]

Here's another slant on this subject.

How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?

Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.

Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.

Are we seeing some of these things already?


MJ:ok:

[abgd]

I'm fairly sure the aircraft that landed in the Hudson river never flew again. From the airframe's point of view, the pilot may as well have pulled a parachute had one been available.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Here's another slant on this subject.

How long before we see redundancy being taken out of aircraft design to make it cheaper and lighter, on the basis that redundancy in systems and structures is no longer necessary, as the BRS option is always there?

Do we really need three hinges on that aileron? After all, if the aileron comes off we can always parachute to safety.

Maybe we can make flap, or even wing attachmets less substantial. Dispense with dual ignition. Design aeroplanes that are unable to recover from a spin.

Are we seeing some of these things already?


MJ:ok:

I have to say that has to be the dumbest post on this thread.

[Jonzarno]

Alot of the flying is done using autopilot

Yes it is. It's in the nature of a long distance tourer that people don't want to hand fly in the cruise for several hours to IFR tolerances. Where I do agree with you is the need to hand fly the aircraft often to stay current.

My own practice is to fly about 75% of departures and approaches by hand when I am single pilot (it's important to stay current on autopilot approaches as well) and 100% on autopilot when carrying passengers which I do relatively infrequently. That works for me but YMMV!


(which is worrying, there are many CAPS "saves" caused by autopilot induced problems).

Really? How many and can you identify them? :confused:

"VMC into IMC, icing incidents, aircraft upset" seem to happen more often to Cirrus pilots than others.

Do they? I don't know for sure as I haven't seen any factual evidence either way and would be interested to see any numbers you can provide but, subjectively, I don't think the Cirrus is better or worse than most other SEPs in that regard.

Whether that assertion is true or not, there are far to many of those incidents regardless of the type of aircraft involved.

The common factor in that type of accident is most often the pilot's decision making and, as I said in an earlier post: Cirrus pilots have no monopoly on stupidity or incompetence (or bad luck come to that)!

Again: the answer, whatever the aircraft, is to do proper training and participate in safety initiatives

For a less experienced pilot, you can easily slowly end up being badly behind the airplane.

That's quite right. The Cirrus is classed as a Technically Advanced Aircraft. It has a lot more capability than many SEPs and learning how to use it properly is vital.

Again: that's why so much emphasis is placed on proper training and participation in safety initiatives. If you do that, it's easy to understand what's going on.

It's striking to me how high a proportion of Cirrus accidents happen to people who don't do that. But I suspect that's true of pilots of other aircraft types as well.

[Jonzarno]

New here.
Flying an Eclipse jet.
Previously owned 2 Cirrus.
Glider pilot.

Learning how to quote...
Dear 007helicopter,
1.5 years ago: "Clearly this success rate can not last "

It has lasted!

As of 19 April 2014
43 CAPS Save Events
With 87 survivors (9 serious injuries, 7 minor injuries, 67 uninjured) and 1 fatality (the one at low altitude)

Giuseppe: vedi che cosa hai iniziato? Credo che sarebbe stato meglio lasciare questo cane a dormire!:)

[mary meagher]

Good morning Jonzarno. Thank you for your comprehensive replies to some of my issues with the Cirrus.

Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.

The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.

So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.

It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.

[PA28181]

we’re businessmen and accountants and doctors and software designers who fly 125 hours a year.

Please don't sterotype me with that blanket description. The nerve of some people.....

[Jonzarno]

Mary

Thanks for your reply, a few thoughts on it:

Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.

No: money doesn't buy safety, it buys capability.

Whether that is what you get in the Robin HR 200 in which I did my PPL, the Cirrus I fly now or the Eclipse jet to which a number of Cirrus owners (still COPA members, by the way!) have upgraded. The capability you need obviously depends on the missions you fly and the Cirrus suits what I need it for.

What does buy you safety as you use that capability is a close understanding of the aircraft, good maintenance and, above all, training and being current on all aspects of flying.

You never asked about this in your earlier post, so I didn't mention it, but I have been to two Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program weekends, my wife and daughter have both done the excellent Partner in Command course and I have also done emergencies training in a full motion simulator, aerobatics and mountain flying training.

The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.

Again no. My flying in airways isn't because the "gadgets have tempted me".

In common with many Cirrus pilots, I use my aircraft mainly for business travel (about 75% of my flying). Given that the aircraft is designed to operate safely and efficiently in airways under IFR, it is far safer and quicker to do that on the typical 300-400 mile flights I do. You might as well criticise pilots who fly twins or turbines in airways for the same reasons.

Sure, I use the autopilot in the cruise - that's what it's there for, but I hand fly a substantial proportion of departures, arrivals and approaches as set out in my earlier post and do that to IFR rather than VFR standards.

So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.

This is a real risk in the same way that a misread of the weather or a moment's inattention can kill a VFR pilot. But blame the equipment? No! Asiana was absolutely pilot error and, as I recall, the training regime carried a substantial part of the blame.

The way to counter this risk is by adhering to very clear operating procedures centred around the use of checklists and reminders and ensure that you stay ahead of the aircraft.

But nobody's perfect all the time and, like every other pilot, I've made my share of mistakes!

It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.

CAPS is exactly that: a get out of jail card. Better not to get into jail in the first place but, if you do, better still not to die there.

I do agree that all flying skills atrophy with lack of use, not just hand flying skills but IFR disciplines as well. Currency and training are the only known antidote!

[Jonzarno]

Please don't sterotype me with that blanket description. The nerve of some people.....

Perhaps I should apologise on behalf of the person who wrote the post that I quoted.

Please remember that he wrote it in the aftermath of the tragic and, probably, needless death of a good friend and, for that reason, perhaps he deserves to be cut a little slack.

For my part, I certainly meant no offence in quoting it.

[shortstripper]

So why are the Cirrus aircraft developing such a reputation for fatalities?

Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?

It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?

Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way? Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used. Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately :ugh:

Have I just answered my own question? :E

SS

[Mach Jump]

I have to say that has to be the dumbest post on this thread.

:ouch:It was just a thought BPF. No need to be rude. :ooh:


MJ:ok:

[taybird]

I would be interested to see information on incident rates per flying hour and fatal incidents per flying hour for a number of types - trainers (c152, pa28-161, pa38), post PPL tourers such as the Trinidad/Tobago/Arrow/Comanche, permit types such as the Piper Cub and the ubiquitous RV family. These cover a number of different types of flying and when compared with the same data for the Cirrus, ought to give a more balanced view of risk. The most similar types of flying would probably come from the Socata flyers, but the others would give useful perspective imo.

[mary meagher]

Jonzarno, I am pleased that you have persuaded your wife and daughter to enroll on the flying partner training, and know what to do should you become incapacitated. Perhaps they could also go for the PPL and the IR? Would they want to?

But it saddens me that you use your Cirrus mainly for business travel, with trips usually from 300/400 miles. Anyone who uses a light aircraft for business reasons is often under pressure to fly when it may be inappropriate; eg, bad weather, fatigue, dicky tummy.... a business meeting that is critical.

We used to call the V-tail Bonanza the "Doctor Killer". Try advising a consultant kidney surgeon that he really shouldn't fly today!

[Big Pistons Forever]

MJ

You are right my posts was impolite and for that I apologize. The point you make however is not sensible. Certification standards will never allow the kinds of shortcuts you are describing.

The Cirrus parachute issue is an obviously an emotive one however the accident data shows an unsurprising correlation between training and accidents.

The Cirrus factory and the COPA have put together the most comprehensive training course available for any small aircraft. The Cirrus pilots that have completed all of the initial training and keep up with the recurrent training are not the ones crashing and only represent a small hand full of chute pulls. All the rest are from Cirrus pilots that did not avail themselves of the available training which I would suggest, speaks volumes about their attitude towards safe flying.

Personally the bottom line is I would rather see live stupid pilots than dead stupid pilots. More importantly there are many passengers flying with those stupid pilots that are still alive because of the chute. I fail to see how anybody can honestly argue that is a bad thing......

[Jonzarno]

Mary

Thanks for your concern but I've never had a problem cancelling a flight if something is wrong although I've really been quite lucky in that regard and not had to cancel to many.

As far as my family goes: my wife certainly won't do a PPL course but I live in hope that my daughter may!

I am all to aware of the Vee Tail doctor killer tag. I think it was that which spawned the Beech training program which, in turn, influenced the Cirrus program.


shortstripper
So why are the Cirrus aircraft developing such a reputation for fatalities?

Because people on forums like this perpetuate the myth that they are death traps and ignore the facts. :ugh:

Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?

Because some accidents lie outside the capability envelope of the system. But more disturbingly, far to many people have not pulled when they should have. Please see the example I quoted earlier.

It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?

I don't have comparative statistics available on that and don't want to make silly generalisations. There have been enough of those already.

What I will say is that the incidence of accidents of all types in Cirrus aircraft can be documented to be significantly lower amongst pilots who are members of COPA and participate in the training and safety initiatives.

Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way?

If you're in a stall / spin turning finals and going to die, you'll try anything. Also, pilots under extreme stress are believed to have either forgotten they have it or thought they could make a safe landing and then pulled to late when they realised they wouldn't make it. See the example I quoted.

Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used.

That is a quite ridiculously unfair and inaccurate statement.

In every case of a fatality under CAPS of which I'm aware it has been deployed below 400 ft except in one case when it was deployed in a dive at over 300 knots after an icing event and the chute ripped off the plane.

Please see the comments about operating parameters in my earlier post. I thought they were fairly clear but will be happy to explain them further if there's any aspect you don't understand.

Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately

Can you give me an example of an inappropriate CAPS pull? I can think of one or possibly two that may not have been necessary. Out of 43 successful saves and 87 survivors. Not a bad percentage?

Have I just answered my own question?

Oh yes! To your own satisfaction, you certainly have. :ugh:

[Mach Jump]

Thanks BPF, and I cant argue with the points you make. If a BRS is truly in addition to existing levels of redundancy, then I'm in favour of it. I guess I'm just a little more sceptical about the relationship between Manufacturers and Certification Authorities.

I've read all the reasoning and logic put forward by Cirrus to the FAA and the JAA, where conventional spin recovery, and BRS deployment appear to be seen as essentially equivalent outcomes, and I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with a POH that has the use of a BRS as the only recommended spin recovery action.

I know these things shouldn't be emotive, but that's the nature of people. I wonder if the emotive argument will shift the first time a BRS drops a fully loaded aircraft on top of a family saloon. ('sedan' for you colonials)


MJ:ok:

[Jonzarno]

I've read all the reasoning and logic put forward by Cirrus to the FAA and the JAA, where conventional spin recovery, and BRS deployment appear to be seen as essentially equivalent outcomes, and I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with a POH that has the use of a BRS as the only recommended spin recovery action.

As has been posted here many times before: when the Cirrus went through its EASA certification, it demonstrated spin recovery successfully.

I think the original decision to get the FAA to accept CAPS as an equivalent level of safety was taken at the time to save certification time and money. It probably made sense at the time, but has spawned the myth that you can't recover a Cirrus from a spin.

I wonder if the emotive argument will shift the first time a BRS drops a fully loaded aircraft on top of a family saloon. ('sedan' for you colonials)

Well a very recent pull did end up on the back of a pickup truck. No casualties.

[Mach Jump]

As has been posted here many times before: when the Cirrus went through its EASA certification, it demonstrated spin recovery successfully.


I'm not suggesting that a Cirrus can't be recovered from a spin, but that BRS deployment is seen as equivalent, and is the only action recommended in the POH.


MJ:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re the spin requirement. For airplanes not approved for intential spins, which include most light aircraft, the certification requirement is that the airplane must be recoverable after a 1 turn spin. After that there is no requirement that you will be able to recover.

A good example of this is the Grumman AA1 series aircraft. This aircraft will recover within one turn but after that the spin goes flat and recovery is impossible. There have been numerous foolish pilots that found this out the hard way.

The Cirrus has in fact demonstrated the 1 turn recovery requirements to the FAA. But they recommend going to the chute because the airplane will recover regardless of what stage of the spin it is in.

More importantly though almost all light aircraft spins occur close to the ground as a result of a poor handling in the takeoff/landing phase of flight, and often result in ground contact before a conventional recovery can be performed. Low altitude spins also almost always result in fatalities. In this scenario I would suggest an immediate chute pull is the more likely to save lives than trying to perform a conventional spin recovery

But the problem is not the presence of a chute, it is the level of competency of pilots flying all high performance piston singles. The amount of bent metal and dead pilots and passengers is in my opinion unacceptable because not enough of the pilots flying these aircraft are attaining and maintaining adequate skills.

The Cirrus folks have been the most aggressive in establishing and promoting a comprehensive operationally focused and practical training program. The sad part is not enough Cirrus pilots are taking it which is why they are disproportionately involved in accidents.

But I reiterate my bottom line is a significant number of stupid pilots and their passengers are alive today only because the Cirrus had a chute and the only smart thing the pilot did that day was pull the handle.

So again, will someone please explain to me why it would be better for general aviation to have more dead Cirrus owners ?

[shortstripper]

Jonzarno

We can all be clever by going through a persons post and taking points out of context to make an argument. I could do the same with yours but to be honest I can't be @rsed. I did read your earlier post about the operational limits and that's why I referred to the use of the chute outside of them. I really don't need you patronise me by offering to "explain" them again.

If you read my posts in their entirety without trying to jump on the slightest hint of negativity, you will see that I acknowledge the BRS system as a worthwhile device and one I'd use if I honestly thought I had to. I don't even knock the design of the aeroplane. I still ask the question though ... Why is the fatal accident rate is so high? It's not a rumour or myth as you say, it's a fact! Without looking too hard here's some stats from Wikipedia (I accept that's not a perfect source, but I don't have time to trawl for better)

Accidents and incidents[edit]

Between 2001 and September 2012 144 US-registered Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed, resulting in 115 fatalities.[31]

In 2011 the accident record of the SR20 and 22 was the subject of a detailed examination by Aviation Consumer magazine. The review concluded that the series has an overall accident record that is better than average for light aircraft, exceeded only by the Diamond DA40 and DA42. However its fatal accident rate is much worse at 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours, placing it higher than the United States general aviation rate of 1.2 and higher than the Diamond DA40 (0.35), Cessna 172 (0.45), Diamond DA42 (0.54), Cessna 182 (0.69) and the Cessna 400 (1.0), despite the SR22's full aircraft parachute system.[32]

By 2014 the accident rate had been dramatically reduced, with a 2013 fatal rate of 1.01 per 100,000 flight hours. This was attributed to better training, particularly in when to deploy the ballistic parachute system.


The last paragraph backs up a lot of your points and I humbly acknowledge that. However, I don't accept that all of us who have other points are all wrong and you are the all knowing source when it comes to forced landing survival. There must be a reason the fatality rate is so high, but hopefully the better training has addressed it?


BPF
The Cirrus folks have been the most aggressive in establishing and promoting a comprehensive operationally focused and practical training program. The sad part is not enough Cirrus pilots are taking it which is why they are disproportionately involved in accidents.

Now that is a sensible answer to my question!

SS

[mad_jock]

From what I have gone and looked at regarding the on going training to those that want it....

If everyone was to go through that with or without a handle in the roof the accident statistics would be a lot more pleasant on the eye.

The reduction in the fatal accidents by cirrus owners that do keep up with the training is far larger than the CAP pulls.

So to me the reduction in fatal accidents is available to everyone. You just have to put yourself into the mind set of. I need training, in need regular training, I will do that training.

Until the that happens the benefits of the CAP will never be realised

[Jonzarno]

Jock

In the past I've disagreed with a lot of things you've said about CAPS, but here you are dead right! :D


Shortstripper

1. I didn't take your points out of context, I simply addressed every point in your post separately and in the order in which you made them.

If you feel any of the evidence I presented or arguments I made are wrong, or if the context in which I should have read them is different, please refute what I said specifically with evidence of your own.

2. I did read your posts in their entirety before responding to them and have since done so again before writing this.

It is striking that this is the first time you have referred to any objective evidence in the form of the Wikipedia article that you quote, and which you acknowledge supports the main argument I have been making all along about the need for training and participation in safety initiatives and demonstrates the impact that those initiatives have had.

I invite you to go back over my posts and count the number of times I have said that, and I am glad to see that BPF has now been able to make the point successfully.

3. If you re-read your post of 1st May, perhaps you will understand why it would cause me to reply as I did.

In it, you make a number of assertions and ask questions that imply "facts" that are simply not true, or ask perjorative questions based on unsupportable premises.

I will just quote three examples here. I acknowledge that they are taken individually but do believe that they reflect accurately the line and attitude expressed in your posts.


I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?


And


Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used.


It's a parachute, and obviously parachutes need height in order to work. If you jump out of a plane wearing a parachute and you aren't high enough you will hit the ground and die. It's the same with CAPS.

Your assertion that Cirrus “wash their hands” is both demonstrably untrue and, if I was the CEO of Cirrus, I would find it pretty offensive. I have made my fair share of criticisms of things that Cirrus has done in the past but, to my knowledge, they have never done anything as cynical as that.

That is why I referred you to the post I made before yours was written, and in which I both set out the demonstrated deployment parameters and made the point that real saves had actually been made well outside those parameters. I am sorry if you found that to be patronising.


However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately


In your last post, you acknowledge the positive effect that the CPPP and transition training programs have had and you are right to do so.

Use of CAPS is an integral part of those programs and the number of successful CAPS saves has increased whilst the number of fatal accidents has decreased. That's a matter of documented fact not opinion. From the article you yourself quoted:


By 2014 the accident rate had been dramatically reduced, with a 2013 fatal rate of 1.01 per 100,000 flight hours. This was attributed to better training, particularly in when to deploy the ballistic parachute system.”


Yet you criticise us for saying that the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged. :confused:

Your assertion that CAPS is being used inappropriately is backed by no evidence. In response I said that I was aware of one instance when it might have been unnecessary for the pilot to pull although, to be fair to him, I wasn't there so can't really criticise him and, in any case, would far rather see him alive having pulled than dead if he screwed up the recovery.

Once again, I invite you to list the “inappropriate” pulls to which you refer: you have 43 successful saves to choose from and you presumably have knowledge of them to be able to describe them as “inappropriate”.

I might also point out that nobody has said “once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle”.

What we do say is that you should pull unless you have a nailed on landing on a proper runway and I know of at least one Cirrus pilot who has done such a landing.

Sadly, as I demonstrated in my earlier post, Manfred Stolle, a good and experienced pilot, died when he got it wrong trying to do that. He is not the only one to die in a Cirrus trying to stretch a glide or land off airport, and there are plenty of other examples as well such as the DA20 crash I quoted in another earlier post.

I acknowledge your undoubted skill in doing three dead stick landings into fields. I'd be interested to know what you were flying (and who does your maintenance! :E). You are obviously a far better pilot than I am, and certainly a far bolder one, although to paraphrase Lady Bracknell: “to lose one engine may be deemed unfortunate, but to lose three......”

By the way: can you imagine the uproar on here if it became known that a single Cirrus pilot had had three engine failures?

I hope you never have another engine failure but, if you do, also hope that it will be as successful and that there is nothing nasty (stone, tree stump, wire fence, ditch ........) that you couldn't see from 400 ft waiting for you when you land.

[mad_jock]

to be honest if you look through mine and others posts on the subject we are not against the concept of the CAP.

What we are against is the PILOT putting themselves in situations which they wouldn't be in without it. with the excuse that it is now an acceptable risk because of the CAP.

And I am sure we could be accused of have more feelings about the waste of a perfectly airworthy airframe than some :mad: wit making an attempt at a Darwin award entry. And to be honest guilty as charged.

And most of us work on the theory that the once the airframe fails its only job left on this world is to ensure the survivability of the soft centre. And none of us would think twice about using it in a manner that would ensure its destruction but meant everyone survived.

Its the go no go based on if a chute is fitted that is the problem and the current skills for the mission being on the stick.

Now if the chute means the risk level is raised and the perceived skill requirement is lower because of it then the CAP is a bad idea. If it makes no difference its a good one.

[mary meagher]

Mad Jock, you make all kinds of sense! That is the whole flap in a nutshell!

If all pilots maintained and improved their flying skills in the ways recommended by the Cirrus program, that would be soon reflected in the statistics.

The human soft centre in the midst of the tupperware is the fallible bit that involves innnocent family and friends, and for that reason a parachute is a good idea. The thing that pisses off those of us that try to be skilled and sensible is that the Cirrus is so expensive, and every time another unskilled wealthy pilot pulls the handle, another nice aeroplane has to spend a very long time in the shop before it flies again, which surely is represented in the insurance premium, which (full circle) only the unskilled wealthy pilot can afford!

So flying, instead of fun, is more of a money game than ever.

What truly makes my blood boil is pilots who take up trusting passengers and show off.

Or put their trusting family in danger when an airline would have been the right choice. I sat in Norfolk Virginia pilots lounge one Thanksgiving day....all day! waiting for the storm system to trek on overhead. I had two passengers who trusted me. Meanwhile a rich man took his family in his fancy twin up to Long Island through the storm system, and tried to land it at three different LI airports, without success, and returned to Norfolk while we were still sitting in the pilots lounge watching the NFL.

OK, he didn't kill the whole family, flying on a day with horrid weather. But they looked pretty miserable all the same.

When conditions cleared, we tried again around 15:00 local time to make it to New Jersey, met the nasty stuff at Baltimore, and without even thinking my plane did a 180. We went back to Norfolk, booked in a motel, and had a Chinese takeaway for Thanksgiving dinner. It was only a rented Cessna 172, IFR equipped (as I) but with a chicken pilot at the controls, living to fly another day as were my friends.

Many a PPL enjoys pretending to be a ATPL, but some conditions require more equipment, namely, brains, and a co-pilot.

[Jonzarno]

but some conditions require more equipment, namely, brains

Oh I do like that and plan to plagiarise it quite shamelessly! :)

[Fuji Abound]

Now if the chute means the risk level is raised and the perceived skill requirement is lower because of it then the CAP is a bad idea. If it makes no difference its a good one.

That is a bit simplistic.

You might fly at night with a chute, but not fly at night without one, you might fly over a low undercast with one, not without, you might fly over the north sea in winter with and not without - you get the idea.

Most SEP pilots skill level at handling a FL is poor and this is a skill I suspect many Cirrus pilots seldom refresh but given the former maybe that is no bad thing.

[Pace]

Fuji

I am starting with 50 hrs on a Cirrus in June so finally taken the plunge :)

the chute is definitely a big potential safety bonus but it should be used wisely and a plot should guard against the feel good factor luring pilots into situations and conditions they would not consider without the chute.

A bit like fitting explosives on every corner of a car in London. I am sure the drivers would be ultra cautious about hitting someone else but in an all singing and dancing car fitted with every impact safety device they would drive with false confidence.

So used as a back up to solid basic flying skills VFR or IFR and aware of the Lure factor it is indeed a big addition to safety

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

Exactly so.

A good start is to ask yourself would you do the flight without a chute. If the answer is yes, you are good to go. If the answer is no, then the question is am I prepared to do the flight with the chute, because in the event of an engine failure the chute will give me an "out" which I would not have without the chute. If the answer is yes, then that is not an unreasonable basis for going - it might not suit everyone I would add, but that's another matter. If the answer is no, then you should stay on the ground.

In one sense it is a bit like flying twins. Essentially you don't prepare for an off airport landing. You don't expect to end up in the drink crossing the North Sea. In a SEP you also don't expect to have to make a forced landing with a 500 foot en route cloud base, but you know if it happens the chance of a successful outcome are in the lap of the Gods. Some will take their chances, because they perceive the risk is very small. Some will take their chances, but only with a chute, because they believe that stacks the odds a lot more in their favour.

So that leaves flights into poor weather conditions - that could be icing, thunder storms, marginal VMC, or IMC beyond your capability. The trouble with weather, just like engine failures, is that it is unpredictable. I know, I know, look at the TAFs. However, there is still a degree of uncertainty. How often have we flown on days towering CBs are forecast, but they have proved good flying days.

Therein is the problem. You fly a SEP without a chute. You assess the weather and decide that you can avoid any towering CBs and proceed with the flight. Another pilot has a SEP with a chute, and makes the same assessment, and a third pilot, also with a chute, thinks chucks it looks ok, but if it goes horribly wrong I will pull the chute. Three pilots, two different types of aircraft and they all reach the same conclusion, but for different reasons.

Inevitably there are the black and white cases. The pilot that sets off at night, in icing conditions, with IMC, without an IR and reckons, well I have a chute, that will save my neck.

The problem is I actually don't think there are many in the last category, and if there are, I am even less convinced that the chute determines whether or not they go - I think of those a large percentage will go anyway. Usually it is because of inexperience, a lack of understanding of the risks, or and inability to assess the situation correctly.

I simply don't believe there are many pilots who would knowingly put themselves in that position because of the chute, because I think most realise pulling the chute is a really big deal.

As with anything there are exceptions! They will probably find some other way of killing themselves anyway.

Enjoy your Cirrus time Pace - it is a great aircraft.

[shortstripper]

Jonzarno

I acknowledge your undoubted skill in doing three dead stick landings into fields. I'd be interested to know what you were flying (and who does your maintenance! ). You are obviously a far better pilot than I am, and certainly a far bolder one, although to paraphrase Lady Bracknell: “to lose one engine may be deemed unfortunate, but to lose three......”

I really don't want to get into a personal slagging match with you. I suppose if I'm honest my replies aren't always completely accurate or analytical. They're often after a glass of wine or two in the evening when I treat this forum as a bit like an place to have informal discussions with fellow aviators. That said, I still hold with what I've said.

I've never pretended to be a "far better pilot" than anyone and that wasn't my intention when I'd said about my three forced landings. I was responding to a post where someone had said that once the engine failed a crash was pretty much inevitable ... I was trying to demonstrate it was not. If you'd read carefully I didn't even say they were all dead stick into fields either. I actually said two resulted in landings back onto the airfield and one was into a field. If you must know, the types they were a Jurca Tempete, an Evans VP2, and a Falconar F11. Not high performance types I know (before you jump on that too for obvious reasons). If I'd had three engine failures in one particular aeroplane then I'd agree that I'd need to be bold or stupid to keep flying it! The point is that engines fail and we shouldn't assume a forced landing will be a crash! If you do believe that (and I don't mean you personally) then you will likely throw your hands up and pull the chute no matter what ... Which brings us back to the OP and was it necessary to pull the chute at 5000' over bloody great fields?

SS

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re engine failures. As I pointed out in the PFL thread if you are flying behind your typical Lycoming or Continental engine and it stops there is about an 80 % chance that the failure was caused by you, the pilot.

Again the point is if you have to use your skygodly flying skills to pull off that forced landing, because you let the engine fail by running out of gas or not draining the tanks of water, or mis selecting the fuel etc etc ; I don't think you are any better than the guy who did the same thing and pulled the chute.

The only difference is the accident record shows you are less likely to kill your self in the forced landing of your Cirrus than if you pulled the handle.

The solution for the unacceptably high accident rate for high performance SEP's is simple, do the training !

[shortstripper]

I must be bloody unlucky then!

The first was indeed pilot induced. Botched aero's that stopped the engine :\ It had a hand swing C90 and though I'd air-started it once before, this time I couldn't.

But ...

The next was fuel starvation with fuel in the tank! I suppose it did qualify as pilot induced but not in a classic way. I was unfamiliar on type and it was a homebuilt VP2 with a flat bottomed tank and tiny sump. I'd been circling in one direction looking for an airstrip and all the fuel slopped to one side. When the tiny sump emptied, the engine stopped resulting in a forced landing. It took a bit of figuring out why the engine had stopped because it started no problem on the ground? My LAA inspector and I figured it out later when we could find no other explanation. A larger sump was subsequently fitted.

The last was a sticking hot/cold air flap on a carb where it stuck in the mid position. It gave similar symptoms to carb icing but caused (I think) turbulent airflow at the mouth of the carb. Once fixed the problem never reoccurred. It was at Goodwood and resulted in an immediate landing on an adjacent runway.

I'm glad they were all in relatively low performance aircraft, but on no occasion did I think "oh f..k! I'm going to crash". Apart from the pilot induced engine stop one the others would have been outside a chute deploy envelope. They'd have been more "interesting" in a Cirrus but probably wouldn't have happened anyway to be honest.

No SkyGod, just a recreational pilot dealing with things that happen as best he can. :ouch:

SS

I'll shutup now! lol

[mad_jock]

Fuji all your examples in my book are unacceptable risk with or with out a chute.

And is exactly the point I am making about go no go for different mission profiles.

The fact you think they are acceptable is rather worrying.

[Fuji Abound]

MJ - well I dont think I said they would be my personal decisions?

but I am not sure which examples you are referring to?

These are the classics;

1. Flying over a low cloud base - this could be a overcast of 500 foot or fog,
2. Flying over the sea outside glide range,
3. Flying in icing conditions,
4. Flying at night,
5. Flying in marginal VMC without an IR,
6. Flying in IMC without an IR,
7. Flying with thunderstorms in the vicinity.

Plenty of SEP pilots do 1, 2 and 4 without a chute. The main risk is engine failure. Statistically the risk is very very small because engine failures are so rare. I cant recall the last time I read about a pilot killing themselves in these conditions. You probably stand a higher chance of falling down the stairs. A chute sways the odds of surviving an engine failure significantly. You may still not like the odds but if this is the only basis of your assessment you should probably avoid every flight of steps.

As to 3, you are nuts flying in icing conditions if the aircraft is not FIKI - as it happens some versions of the Cirrus are. Leaving that aside many SEP pilots accept the risk of flying in icing conditions as long as they "know" they can descend into warmer air quickly and icing is likely to be light. Many pilots consider with proper planning this is an acceptable risk.

As to 5, pilots without an IR have flown in marginal VMC for ever. Again it can be done safely, but it can also prove fatal and is, without doubt, one of the biggest killers.

Your are nuts to do 6.

7 is a bit like 3 and 5.

My friend is PIC in an aircraft with four engines. In his early days he had an engine failure while crop dusting and refuses to fly in a SEP - period.

Another friend who is not a pilot had a bad experience on a commercial flight - he will not fly in any aircraft.

We each make our own risk assessment. As I said you cant say 1 is an unacceptable risk in an aircraft with a chute and go any where near a flight of stairs because statistically you are more likely to come to harm on the flight of stairs. That is an irrational assessment. 5 is a good example where it is much more difficult to control the risk and therefore it is a much more difficult assessment. Learn how to assess the risk and the evidence suggests you can do 5 safely.

So, MJ, they are (although I am not certain to which you refer) unacceptable in your book, and that is of course fine - its your call and you doubtless have your reasons. These days I rarely fly in a single because I can and do fly a fully deiced twin. Personally at my age I feel more comfortable in a twin. I know it is irrational, but hey, that's life. However, ask me to do any of the above and I would, except 6, if I didn't have an IR. Personally I would hesitate to do 1 and 4 without a chute, I would have my own parameters for 2, 3, 5 and 7, although a chute would only come into the equation with 2.

Of course these are age old arguments that come up time and time again. MJ you have your own views which I totally respect, and I have mine. I have thought them through over a great many years but I can always be persuaded to change them although too be convinced the arguments would need to be well constructed and supportable.

That is me done, I just felt I had to get that off my chest once again!

PS - on re-reading I should have added the caveat that I am referring to certified and well maintained aircraft. I accept that some non certified aircraft constitute a higher risk of engine failure and personally I make a point of not flying in an aircraft in which I doubt the quality of the maintenance. As someone said earlier I know of very few engine failures in certified aircraft that have been methodically maintained by reputable engineers that were not the direct fault of the pilot.

[mad_jock]

personal risk assessment is up to individual.

And I wouldn't be doing those in a single with or without a chute.

I would be more than happy to do them in your de-iced twin.

Maybe it is age or experience is something to do with it.

But as you have said your decision isn't based on it you have the CAP or not. So my statement still stands. If having the CAP changes your flight profile or if it even takes place its a bad thing. If it makes no difference what's so ever its a good thing.

But its the recurrent standardised training which is really having an affect on the accident stats not the CAP currently.

[007helicopter]

Pace nice news, SR20 or SR22?

[Flying Ted]

I have just stumbled in to this thread and only have reviewed a few pages, so apologies in advance if the next comments have already been covered.

The ATSB have recently released their report:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-154.aspx

It appears the engine failed because of lack oil. There is a suggestion there wasn't enough oil on board at the start of the trip (c.5 quarts instead of the 6-7 recommend). What was more surprising (in my view) is the plane flew for 2 1/2 hours after the oil light first went on. (In that someone would fly past so many ALAs rather than engine lasting that long.)

The pilot tried to solve the problem in the air by calling the maintenance centre. (Too many options perhaps?) Personally I would have favoured doing this safely on the ground.

Was the chute pull unnecessary? My view, I think the engine failure was unnecessary in the first place.

[mad_jock]

And I am sure we could be accused of have more feelings about the waste of a perfectly airworthy airframe than some :mad: wit making an attempt at a Darwin award entry. And to be honest guilty as charged.


I think that one comes under this statement.

[Fuji Abound]

But as you have said your decision isn't based on it you have the CAP or not. So my statement still stands. If having the CAP changes your flight profile or if it even takes place its a bad thing. If it makes no difference what's so ever its a good thing.

I don't think that is quite the case.

As I said the risk of an engine failure in a certified well maintained single is diminishingly small. There are plenty of people who accept the odds, and I dont think they are unreasonable, given that you are also equally unlikely to kill yourself in the forced landing that follows.

However the odds of a successful forced landing with a low cloud base for example are skewed. I think there is sound justification for flying with a low cloud base with a chute.

[mad_jock]

I think there is sound justification for flying with a low cloud base with a chute

And hence the problem and the stigma attached to cirrus pilots.

"The idiot shouldn't have been there in the first place to have to even pull the chute"

The main issue isn't the engine failures in the cruise as far as I can see. It engine failure on departure which the chute is cock all use for.

The issue is the inability to fly the plane and the inability to carry out perfectly normal pilots dutys such as straight and level in cloud and setting off with enough oil in.

[maxred]

However the odds of a successful forced landing with a low cloud base for example are skewed. I think there is sound justification for flying with a low cloud base with a chute.

And that one statement finishes the argument, because it epitomises the whole Cirrus/ BRS debate.

It is not the aeroplane, it is not the engine, it is not the systems, it is not anything to do with spin certification.

It, as has been pointed out and argued from the first chute pull, it is do with the individuals mind set about how they fly this aeroplane.

A mind set of, lets say, invincible, which leads to a mindset of I don't even need to check the bloody oil because I get it serviced, did you not know.that old chap.......

[Jonzarno]

It, as has been pointed out and argued from the first chute pull, it is do with the individuals mind set about how they fly this aeroplane.


Yes, that's quite right: I'd rather have a full IR, do training and maintain proper currency fly a properly IFR equipped and capable aircraft which is equipped with CAPS to let me survive a whole range of emergencies one of which is an engine failure in IMC or with a low cloud base.

That's my approach and that of pretty much every COPA member I know.


A mind set of, lets say, invincible


No: let's not say invincible, let's say prepared.

Anyone who has an IR and uses it in earnest has regularly flown with a cloud base below 500 feet given that the minima for both precision and non precision instrument approaches are less than that.



which leads to a mindset of I don't even need to check the bloody oil because I get it serviced, did you not know.that old chap.......


So you impute the actions of what may have been a single negligent or silly pilot to all the pilots of over 5500 Cirrus aircraft?

If I looked, I am pretty sure I could find a similar lapse on the part of a pilot flying a Cessna, Piper, Socata, Diamond or any other type.

Would that make all pilots of those types fools as well?

[mad_jock]

Its not the COPA members that are the problem. The ones that come on here I would be suprised if they ever need the chute.

Its all about the attitude. The simple fact that they bother thier backside to be involved with an organisation which promotes on going training and competency means they are way out of the class of the pillocks we are discussing.

And don't worry any pilot in any type who took off without oil would get the same treatment.

As I said I have done hundreds of approaches down to mins both the rvr and cloud base quite often both. None of them have been in a single.

[Pace]

Jonzarno

MJ has a valid point in the fact that an engine failure is far more likely to occur on takeoff when the engine is stressed and far less likely to fail in the cruise or approach to landing.

Those who regard pulling the chute as a primary engine failure procedure are fooling themselves as the most likely time for them to use the chute for engine failure will be when the aircraft is too low for the chute.

Hence that emphasis on the need to be very current on EFATO !

The very unlikely engine failure at 2000 feet would be more than covered with the EFATO currency thus negating the use of the chute for engine failure to unsuitable for forced landing situations.

For me the chute is another option available to the competent and current pilot in his array of options and not a get out of jail card to cover a lack of basic piloting skills.

Looking through the Cirrus chute pull accident statistics makes you wonder at some of the ludicrous situations where the chute has been pulled and question the competency of the pilots electing to pull the chute in situations where they should not be

[maxred]

Would that make all pilots of those types fools as well?

Jonzarno, sorry, no one used the word, fools, to my knowledge. They are not, nor ever, were, fools.

My take though,is that there does appear to be something wrong, and instead of the Cirrus community going all, defensive every time the BRS is mentioned, it would be advantageous, and I believe that the COPA group, do actually take this attitude/issue, call it what you want, seriously.

At the heart of course is training, and more training, and for some it is already, to late, and that is sad.

The Cirrus is a serious piece of kit, and if one can afford to get into the game with one, then one can surely afford, to get totally trained, and not make some of the situation errors that appear to be happening with some regularity.

[Fuji Abound]

MJ has a valid point in the fact that an engine failure is far more likely to occur on takeoff when the engine is stressed and far less likely to fail in the cruise or approach to landing.

Are you sure? Moment by moment you may be right, but more engines have failed in the cruise that on take off.

Hence that emphasis on the need to be very current on EFATO !

Not really. Almost always the only sensible approach to an engine failure that low is to land straight ahead, having remembered to stop the possibility of an almost instant stall. I would suggest the approach to an engine failure after take off is quite different than in the cruise. In fact get the nose down, dont turn too much and there will be little time for much else, the rest is in the lap of the Gods. Pilots I have flown with usually handle these far better than an engine failure in the cruise when they seem a great deal more capable of avoiding the best landing sites and selecting the worst!


As I said I have done hundreds of approaches down to mins both the rvr and cloud base quite often both. None of them have been in a single.

As I said earlier I really dont think that is relevant. It is your choice. Plenty of pilots spend their whole lives flying singles to mins., statistically you really are very very unlikely to suffer an engine failure in a certified well maintained single. Yes of course it might happen, just as you might hit a flock of birds with two engines and have both fail, just as the driver coming towards you might hit you head on. It happens, if you dont like the odds you do as MJ suggests, your choice and no loss of respect for making that choice but I don't think you are entitled to imply those who flying singles to mins are being irrational - in fact you can bet your life if it were that dangerous it would have been banned long ago.

How many catastrophic engine failures have you read about occurring on late final with the cloud base at mins - I cant recall the last one I read?

In fact as we know there is evidence that you are more likely to kill yourself in a light twin than a single. Yeah I know, more to do with the pilot than the extra engine, but there are plenty of twins pilots who will continue on one engine far further than they should - does that give twin pilots a bad reputation?

In fact come to think about it only this week two highly experienced commercial pilots in a CAT seemed to think this was a good idea - indeed they thought it was a good idea to complete almost the whole flight on one engine.

It engine failure on departure which the chute is cock all use for.

Not so - there is plenty of debate about how low the chute might be useful and actual evidence of the effect.


And that one statement finishes the argument, because it epitomises the whole Cirrus/ BRS debate.

Now I am confused? In what way?

[mad_jock]

It is banned for commercial transport.

And I know 4 pilots that lost a rear turbine on approach in sub 500ft wx. Using pt 6 and tp 331's. You won't read about the failures in twins. But they do happen. The reason why you don't read about them is because there isn't a crash.

Single engine min approaches are extremely rare in the grand scale of things. If there was statistics kept for the numbers even if it had happened once it would produce an unacceptable accident statistic. Similar to Concorde going from one of the best safety records to one of the worst in one crash.

[007helicopter]

'PLANE' LUCKY: pilot and passenger walk away from crash

Engine failure in a Cirrus at 5000 ft, day VMC, over a dream-field for a forced landing (check out picture No. 3): would you have pulled the chute?

Going back to the opening post and answering the question as a Cirrus owner & Pilot the answer is YES I would have pulled the chute.

The reason being because I would have in my opinion a 99% chance of survival for me and my passenger.

In an unknown surface with possible ruts, ditches, wires, tree stumps etc I have no idea at the real chances of survival and no injury but in my opinion could be around 75% - 80% chance of no serious injury or death. Maybe more maybe less, I do not know.

What I do know is that a Cirrus with small wheels, relatively high landing speed and high inertia at landing speed is no fun on a rough unknown surface. In this situation also has a high chance of flipping over. If under the stress of a forced landing I nail speeds and touch down point perfectly (which is unlikely) then the landing surface is still a complete lottery.

I understand the emotion if with hind sight pilot XYZ got him self in a bad situation and should have known better, hell we all make mistakes, but where this guy was as far as I am concerned he totally took the best course of action and is alive and well to tell the tale.

Would you have pulled the chute?

[mad_jock]

No but then again I might have been higher at 10k so could make the airport.

And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

Hell that paddock is in a better state for landing than most grass fields in the UK.

But this pretty academic because I would have checked the oil before departure and would have been on the ground ASAP after the oil light coming on. Maybe still an OFF airfield landing but a powered forced landing allowing me to do a flyby to check the paddock before committing to landing.

So the prat in question is 100% responsible for pranging a serviceable airframe. And if after nearly 2000 hours he is showing such poor PIC skills to continue with an oil light on he needs his license permanently revoked.

There were at least 3 stages where the error chain could have been broken. We're these basic airmanship actions omitted because the Prat had a chute in the back? If so the accident happened due to the chute.

[007helicopter]

And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

For me the big thing with PFL's is I understand essential in a non BRS aircraft and an essential skill for us all to practice but:

a) They never actually practice the final critical stage of actually landing off airport.

b) As an instructor how many have you said something along the lines of, that was not to good, have another go?

c) A lot easier with an instructor doing a practice, or several practices than the real life adrenalin pumping scenario of an unexpected problem.

d) I would not trust my family to fly with anyone who had the more Macho mentality of doing forced landing in fields rather than use the safer option of the chute. (If they were in a cirrus)

When I first started flying Cirrus my mentality was to land in a filed in an emergency rather than use the Chute, this only changed after about 2 years of ownership and when I studied more fatal accidents and did more training with far more experienced people than I will ever strive to be.

[Lone_Ranger]

a) They never actually practice the final critical stage of actually landing off airport.Of course not, its high risk, likely to damage the aircraft.

Do pilots practice ballistic chute pulls?, of course not, they just simulate them


d) I would not trust my family to fly with anyone who had the more Macho mentality of doing forced landing in fields rather than use the safer option of the chute. (If they were in a cirrus)

Me neither, I also wouldnt trust an instructor, with the blinkered view that a chute pull was always the best alternative, which your post implies

[mad_jock]

that's up to you who you would send you family out with.

But personally given the choice of a commercial pilot with 1200 hours SEP experience and 5000 hours IFR 3000 of which is in manual none AP twins. And some prat who doesn't check the oil and flys with a low oil pressure light on for hours but has a chute.

I know who my nearest and dearest would be flying with.

Oh and some of us used to teach down to 5ft with the inherent risk that occurs with such low go arounds. There is a real risk that a PFL might turn into a real one when you do this so the field has to be good for it. The risk in my book was worth it because all my students were then equipped to the best of my ability for the unlikely event it ever happens to them. Until you get the student down into the ground rush phase of PFL's with fences flying towards wheels a PFL down to 500ft agl is a pretty academic exercise.

[007helicopter]

Of course not, its high risk, likely to damage the aircraft.

I suppose that is my main point, if it is likely to damage the aircraft it is likely in a a percentage of cases to damage (or kill) the occupants and the higher the landing speed the higher the damage potential.

Do pilots practice ballistic chute pulls?, of course not, they just simulate them

In a simulator yes and I was amazed how realistic it was and for me was a turning point on my own personal SOP

Me neither, I also would not trust an instructor, with the blinkered view that a chute pull was always the best alternative, which your post implies

My own SOP for any off airport situation needing to land is that I will always use the the chute, this decision is made before I take off. This is something I receive a reasonable amount of criticism for, mainly from the non Church of Cirrus community, However as a result of these forums and further thought I have modified this now and if the ground wind is likely to be 35+ knots on the ground then I will consider a landing into wind due to the risk of the chute dragging the plane along the ground.

Oh and some of us used to teach down to 5ft with the inherent risk that occurs with such low go arounds. There is a real risk that a PFL might turn into a real one when you do this so the field has to be good for it. The risk in my book was worth it because all my students were then equipped to the best of my ability for the unlikely event it ever happens to them. Until you get the student down into the ground rush phase of PFL's with fences flying towards wheels a PFL down to 500ft agl is a pretty academic exercise.

MJ Out of interest does current PPL training allow down to 5ft if the instructor chooses or has the sylabus changed?

Let me ask a question, Hypothetically if you were in a Cirrus and had 100 random unexpected forced landing, lets say in Southern England so reasonable terrain and lets also say in perfect VFR weather, How many do you think you and your passengers would walk away unscathed?

[mad_jock]

there was nothing ever to stop it. The 500ft rule though needs to be obeyed which may limit things either from lack of understanding by the instructor or from to many man made objects about.


The debate about random forced landings is relatively far down the list of incidents with cirrus. Incompetency is far higher.

Once the number of in wrong place in the wrong conditions and incompetent airmanship which maybe or maybe not be attributed to the safe feeling by the chute in the back is reduced.

Only then can the statistics be looked at for if the chute is an asset in that situation. If its the case that more incidents occur due to the chute being on board, then its having a negative effect on safety.

[007helicopter]

The debate about random forced landings is relatively far down the list of incidents with cirrus. Incompetency is far higher.

I may not disagree with that other than I would say applies equally across GA and Cirrus is no better or worse than other similar makes.

This post is about a specific chute pull and claiming a traditional forced landing should have been carried out on what some claim to be a perfectly good surface.

Based on your earlier comment And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?

[shortstripper]

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?

Pretty stupid question if you ask me?

I wonder honestly how many you think you'd survive using a parachute? I mean honestly? ... If you think 100% you're deluding yourself too! It all depends on circumstances in both instances. It's a pretty crowded place ... I bet in 100 random CAP deployments in the South of the UK there would be loss of life on the ground as well!

SS

[mary meagher]

No doubt Cirrus owners are very busy people. That's how they make their money. Do we have a statistic on the percentage of Cirrus owners who invest their time on the advanced training needed to become competent pilots?

The history of the company certainly makes interesting reading; seems to be owned now by the People's Republic of China.

The latest model has 3 seats in the back, you can fold one down to fit in your golf clubs. Payload 900 pounds with enough fuel for 3 hours and reserve. But doesn't seem to offer retractable gear.
I've just done a little trawling through Trade-a-Plane, you can buy a SR22T for only $665,000. With only 48 hours TT. Wonder why the owner is selling it so soon?

[Fuji Abound]

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain? You are asking the wrong person the wrong question.

Thank goodness private flying isnt the sole domain of the high hours commercial or private pilot. If it were it would be dead. The reality is most private pilots are low hours relatively infrequent flyers.

The fact is a forced landing in a single requires a reasonable level of skill and currency. On the other hand a chute pull requires only a good understanding of the procedure. In that regard on average it represents a more reliable option for most pilots than a forced landing.

The most telling view I take from this thread is the dichotomy between the "professional" pilot contributors and the "others" here and else where. I think we need to be realistic. As I said earlier the average PPL cant afford to fly twins, they dont fly hundreds of hours a year and they are challenged on their flying budget. Ok, it might be great if they did fly a lot more hours but they dont, and, if we were all required to, their would be no GA.

So it is about using technology in the best possible way to make the environment as safe as possible. We know we should check the oil and we know we should do all sorts of other pre-flight checks but, being human, we dont, or at least we are not as thorough as we always should be. I dont make that comment as an excuse, but as a reflection of the human condition. So hopefully we gradually will see aircraft that automate more of these functions. Unfortunately it has been slow to happen. Consider for one moment the automotive industry; air bags, I have sensor that warn me if the oil is low, or the tyre pressure is less than recommended - and why not. In my view these are all safety enhancements.

I embrace change. The Aztec has a critical engine, I am left pumping gear and flaps, it has six levers, cowl flaps, props that dont sync, and then the new - the DA42 has props that self sync, no pumps, no cowl flaps - you get the idea. Does the first aircraft make me a better pilot? Maybe it makes me better at demonstrating my ability to manipulate a more complex environment, but it introduces more risks, more elements I might fail to control as well as I should, more reason to remain very current.

So I think the average PPL will stand a better chance of a happier outcome landing under chute. I dont think the average private pilot is capable of flying a twin and I am not even convinced that the average light twin necessarily is a significant contribution to safety. I dont think you can compare the level of risk with CAT because GA is incapable of obtaining the same standard.

Edited to add as to Mary's question I think Cirrus really tried to design an aircraft that was as safe as possible. The undercarriage is welded because upy downy undercarriage introduces another risk - a risk of it not working, and risk of the pilot forgetting to use it, all for not a huge aerodynamic advantage, the chute was from the same recipe book, as was single lever operation, air bags in the seat belts, accurate fuel gauges etc. However they wanted the aircraft to be quick but reasonably fuel efficient. At the moment there is the catch 22 - you cant ignore that in GA terms a quick, slippery and capable aircraft still requires the pilot to keep up more so than the average spam can, and it still requires the pilot to remain that little bit more current. That could be the element Cirrus forgot, or at least the training industry, insurers and pilots forget. The balance has been pretty much addressed. Most pilots flying high performance singles are receiving better training and are now better pilots - inevitably there will always be the exceptions.

[maxred]

FA, that was a very sensible, astute, and relevant post.

The hypothesis however, presents a relatively unsafe position, going forward, introducing a similar vein as to what is being experienced in the world of commercial flying. The human v technology..

With safer aids, technology based, the human has to be even more up to speed with what's happening around them. Time may tell..

[Big Pistons Forever]

The flying school I have taught at off and on for 25 years requires an annual proficiency check ride for our PPL renter pilots. I always fail the engine at some point during the ride, in cruise flight, at altitude, with a landable surface within easy gliding range. What I don't do is set them up for one of the half dozen or do fields that are always used during flight training.

In all those years I have never had a PPL renter pilot do a wholly successful PFR. That is complete a good cause check and manoeuvre the aircraft so that it would arrive at the chosen touchdown point at a suitable touchdown speed. Probably half were so badly flown they likely would have resulted in a fatalities.

This is a case of "what is" vs "what should be". What should is that every pilot could fly a perfect PFL at any time. What is, is the reality that this skill is not being maintained. I support the concept that for a relatively fast, heavy, airplane with small tires, if the engine were to fail the best course of action will almost always be pulling the chute.

As I have pointed out in other threads approximately 80% of engine failures in SEP's are caused by the pilot. The best way to deal with an engine failure is to not have it fail in the first place, or if it does, get it going again. That is where the training emphasis needs to start

FA makes a very good point. The reality for PPL's is that they will in any given time frame have a relatively low amount of flying time. Part of this flying time must IMO be devoted to skills maintenance. So given that skills practice time is not infinite where could those flying hours be best used. looking at accident reports I don't see very many cases where lack of ability to fly a Forced Approach after an unforeseeable engine failure resulted in calamity. What I see are a bunch of badly flown PFL's after a engine failure that was totally preventable and never had to happen. I also see a discouragingly large number of airplanes bent on takeoff and landing after the pilot could not properly control the aircraft.

If you want to do skills training wouldn't it be better to concentrate on those things that the accident statistics show pilots are not doing very well at ?

[mad_jock]

seems very sensible to me BPF.

And in this case it would have been solved by.

1. Checking the oil before departure and toping up.

2. Diverting when the oil light came on.

All pretty simple stuff which any flavour of private pilot should be doing be they 45 hours or 2000 hours.

So yes the chute pull was completely avoidable and unnecessary a forced landing would be described as "The most unnecessary forced landing ever"

BUt it still comes back to if he did what he did because he had a chute in the back.

[007helicopter]

MJ - BPF & FA all well made points

So yes the chute pull was completely avoidable and unnecessary a forced landing would be described as "The most unnecessary forced landing ever"

Sorry MJ Cannot agree, I am sure if I looked through there are sadly even worse cases.

Agree the main mistake was not to divert as soon as a suspect oil problem, he was clearly wrong to press on, did the chute influence that? I do not know but fully accept it can not be ruled out and hope to hell in a similar situation I would not be lured in by this thinking.

However, having made a gross error as many Pilots do, he finds himself with a seized engine at 5000ft, from that point I believe he fortunately did everything pretty much right and made a decision at 2000ft to pull the chute over a safe looking wide open area.

He may have been able to pull off a safe forced landing, or may not and could have suffered serious injury or death.

Personally I would not fancy it and would prefer in this specific case my improved chances under the chute.

[mad_jock]

We will never know what would have happened if he tried.

Its all linked in to the advances in information presentation as well.

The old steam gauges are harder to get your head round but once you do they work. There are alot less failure modes. There are alot less interactions between them all and knowledge required to understand failure modes.

I have 1000 hours on EFIS when flying it we had weekly comparator errors screen drop outs and numerous other what the hell is wrong with it now type stuff. Usually fixed by doing the old off on trick.

My other hours are on steam and I can count on one hand the number of instrument failures. And none of them were particularly exciting. I have had lightening strikes and apart from the GPS taking a wobbly the pilots underpants came off worse than the aircraft.

So it could also be that the thing is just to easy for incompetents to fly when everything is working. It flys like a computer game and they need an escape button when anything goes wrong.

[Lone_Ranger]

My own SOP for any off airport situation needing to land is that I will always use the the chute, this decision is made before I take off. This is something I receive a reasonable amount of criticism for, mainly from the non Church of Cirrus community

Worthy Criticism it is too, when you make such a blanket statement


You are at 300 ft on climbout with the runway behind and a nice big field directly ahead..?

You are 1/2 a mile from coasting in a few miles east of Shoreham at 2000ft in late January with a 12 knot offshore wind.....?

[mary meagher]

EVERY TIME I climb in a glider I strap on a parachute. Even went on a course to do a parachute jump to see if the damn thing works;( it did, but wasn't a very comfortable landing....)

So obviously I am in favour of a get out of jail card. We are REQUIRED to wear parachutes if (1) flying in cloud ... yes, in the UK, we are allowed to fly IMC in gliders. or (2) if flying in competition ....we fly a LOT closer to other gliders than power pilots do. The occasional glider/power midair usually, on investigation by the AAIB, turns out to have been the power pilot who wasn't looking out. And it is usually fatal to the power pilot, who doesn't have the option of using his chute - unless he is, of course, flying in a ...... At my age I have a struggle just climbing out of the glider on the ground, so a rocket would come in handy. But me worry? about doing a field landing? gliders have more time to decide and to plan, and we know the performance of our aircraft. ... Goes down, usually, unless you find lift.

Actually, with all those fancy big screens to look at in the front of the Cirrus cockpit, its a wonder the pilot can see out at all. No doubt he is carrying FLARM in case there is a glider nearby....for sure, ATC won't tell him about 50 gliders flying down a cloud street in a competition on a good soaring day!
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)

My question this time is did those chaps in BEND, OREGON, ever make a success of the GLIDER that had a Ballistic Recovery Chute installed? I know a few of those guys pulled the chute. If anybody reading this can bring me up to date on their story, please do!

[Fuji Abound]

Actually, with all those fancy big screens to look at in the front of the Cirrus cockpit, its a wonder the pilot can see out at all. No doubt he is carrying FLARM in case there is a glider nearby....for sure, ATC won't tell him about 50 gliders flying down a cloud street in a competition on a good soaring day!
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)

Do you think that might be considered a little selfish?

[mad_jock]

You mean selfish like dropping over a ton of uncontrolled aircraft out of the sky on a parachute due to incompetency?

[Jonzarno]

Yes.....

From the BBC today:

BBC News - Pilot unhurt after plane hits house in Colorado (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27287656)

Far better to hit at 60 KTS and do a proper job than at 17........

Happily, the pilot was lucky enough not to have been badly hurt.

No CAPS pull has ever done this much damage nor has there been a post impact fire.

[shortstripper]

No CAPS pull has ever done this much damage nor has there been a post impact fire.

Yet :}

SS

PS Joking of course! ... Please take that as tongue in cheek as that is how it's meant.

[mad_jock]

And banner towing is well known for its safe operation. NOT.

I only watched a pick up once and thought ":mad: that for a game of soldiers"

[Jonzarno]

Yep: as Monsieur Farage will no doubt confirm :p :O

[mad_jock]

Mind you a wooden Colorado home and a clapped tow plane the insurance pay out will still be less that the cirrus chute pull.

And from the heights they tow at in the US the chute would have been outside its deploy envelope.

[Jonzarno]

Actually the article says he was on his way to the towing job so presumably above the minimum deployment altitude, although obviously not high enough to glide clear.

[mad_jock]

From what I have seen of them after a pick up its max continuous power then curvature of the earth which dictates how high up they are.

And if your not glide clear you shouldn't be there. Again something that shouldn't have happened if basic airmanship had been followed.

[Jonzarno]

Yes, although I don't know much about banner towing, I think that is how they work and, as you say, it's quite scary.

Given that it's (presumably) a commercial operation, isn't it regulated at all?

FWIW, the way I read this one was that he had not yet picked up the banner but was on his way to get it. Anyway, I can't see any sign of the banner in the picture.

For me, it looks like he was just to low to glide clear.

Anyhow, I'm simply glad he's OK and nobody in the house was hurt.

[mad_jock]

IN the UK is very heavily regulated so much so I think only 3-4 places do it. And I suspect they are old AOC's that its on with grandfather rights. I suspect you wouldn't have a chance in hell with a new AOC.

You pick up in a separate area then transit. The area needs to be quite open as you can see below so is normally done at an airfield. next to the runway.

They take off then drop a line and hook off the back. That dangles at the back about 10-15ft long. They can either do it with the line held up front if its a glider tug convert or have two hook releases for the attachment at the back.


Then a wire is hung between two poles about 10ft off the ground and 10-15ft apart attached to the banner which is folded in a special way.

The plane is then flown at the wire at Vne. Then its pulled into a sharp climb and max power. They want it to be a steep as possible so the banner pulls clean and no twists etc. If that happens they have to drop it and start again.

If they go to low the hook bounces on the ground and can go over the top to smash into the prop of the cockpit. If they are to high they miss it.

Then when the airspeed drops to stall they lower the nose and then go on there way.

He will have dumped the banner as soon as he had an engine problem, with it on the back he would have had the glide performance of a house brick. They have bloody heavy lumps of lead on them to keep the thing stable and not to spin. And the cable isn't light either. You don't want to be near it when it comes down.

the only reason why I know this is because the CFI at my old school wanted to do it. Thankfully it never happened.

Funny enough the C172 is about the only aircraft that doesn't need a major mod to be able to banner tow, just the hook release. You can't just use a glider tug as its significantly more load than towing one of them.

This info was gained years ago and maybe not complete or have slight inaccuracy's.

My personal view when I watched the pickup training video was ":mad: that for a game of Soldiers" and I have seen absolutely nothing to change my view on that.

[Jonzarno]

Thanks for the explanation: you learn something new every day! :ok:

[mary meagher]

There are banners and banners. Along any holiday beach in the US of A there will be somebody pulling a banner; some are incredibly heavy and awkward, others relatively light, and you don't need all that much power to unroll a string of letters that were laid out nicely on the lawn.

In Florida they take off all the cowlings and fly the Supercub with the engine hanging out in the breezes, so it doesn't get overheated.

I watched them doing the banner towing, with a suitable romantic message, at Clacton on Sea where I went for my tailwheel conversion training. Just a bog standard Supercub 150 hp. The rope was strung over a couple of poles, the Cub dived down and picked up the yoke with the towhook, and THEN the rope somehow went loopy and entangled itself with the empennage! The cub had to fly sideways, couldn't dump the banner, and did an amazing landing ACROSS the grass runway, the whole banner and rope acting as an impromptu arrestor device, for it stopped in about ten feet, no harm done.

I decided to stick to towing gliders.

[mad_jock]

your really not selling it to me Mary that I made a bad career choice staying well away from it.

[maxred]

The plane is then flown at the wire at Vne. Then its pulled into a sharp climb and max power. They want it to be a steep as possible so the banner pulls clean and no twists etc. If that happens they have to drop it and start again.

Yep, bent the main spar on a Super Cub, year 2000. Someone had wrapped the wire twice round the pole:eek:, so when max applied, guess what, out came the poles as well. They fell off as climbed away, continued with the banner, now unfurled, and after landing, the aircraft was checked. Main spar bent, mmmmmmm...

Always thought had it been a standard Cub, might not have made it. A loop at 75 feet:8

[Jonzarno]

Yep, bent the main spar on a Super Cub, year 2000. Someone had wrapped the wire twice round the pole, so when max applied, guess what, out came the poles as well.

A bit like a sort of upwards CAPS system then? :p

[mad_jock]

Its not unknown for aircraft to go flying with all three concrete filled tyres tie downs still attached.

Just showing that they are about as much use as tits on a bull.

[Pace]

So obviously I am in favour of a get out of jail card. We are REQUIRED to wear parachutes if (1) flying in cloud ... yes, in the UK, we are allowed to fly IMC in gliders. or (2) if flying in competition ....we fly a LOT closer to other gliders than power pilots do. The occasional glider/power midair usually, on investigation by the AAIB, turns out to have been the power pilot who wasn't looking out. And it is usually fatal to the power pilot, who doesn't have the option of using his chute - unless he is, of course, flying in a ...... At my age I have a struggle just climbing out of the glider on the ground, so a rocket would come in handy. But me worry? about doing a field landing? gliders have more time to decide and to plan, and we know the performance of our aircraft. ... Goes down, usually, unless you find lift.

But there is a huge difference in wearing and using a chute and the Caps!
i am sure you would not bail out of a glider if the ASI packed up? But that is exactly what happened with one chute pull!

Incredible maybe but yes it has happened as well as many other needless pulls.

This is really what the debate is about not whether the chute is a good safety benefit but when and where it should be pulled?

the debate is about just the fact of having a chute luring pilots into conditions and situations that they are ill equipt to deal with.

Normally a pilot wearing a chute bails out if the aircraft becomes unflyable as in gliding or aerobatics or where the pilot cannot recover a situation.

Not so the Caps pull where it is being used for anything and everything and Mary all your landings are FLs while some promote the idea of a Caps pull for a FL whether there is a suitable landing site below or not.

This is the worrying trend that the chute is making up for a lack of basic piloting skills rather than as an addition to a proficient and well trained and current pilots options should things go dramatically wrong

Pace

[maxred]

Its not unknown for aircraft to go flying with all three concrete filled tyres tie downs still attached.

Just showing that they are about as much use as tits on a bull

Brings back vividly the infamous Glenforsa to Edinburgh incident. FEDS not amused..........:eek::eek::uhoh:

[Fuji Abound]

Incredible maybe but yes it has happened as well as many other needless pulls.

Pace

So who decides it is a needless pull?

Me?

You?

By your standards as a commercial highly experienced pilot?

No. The point is every pilot meets the required standard to fly a Cirrus, and demonstrates that ability every other year to the satisfaction of an instructor.

At the level and standard of the pilots concerned they thought in the circumstances in which they found themselves the chute pull was necessary and in most cases in may have saved their lives. Without the chute they probably would have got themselves into the same situation.

So if a finger is to be pointed it might better be pointed at the general standard of pilots.

I know, back to the argument that Cirrus pilots take on missions that no other pilot would do because of the chute. However I simply do not believe their is the evidence to support that argument - its emotive, without a factual basis.

[mad_jock]

It is emotive and people become blinkered when they buy in to a concept.

And you will find all of us do challange the dumbing down of pilot standards.

[Jonzarno]

I am sure you would not bail out of a glider if the ASI packed up? But that is exactly what happened with one chute pull!


I believe the event refered to is this one:


CAPS event #12, Apr 2007, Luna, NM

1 injured; (CAPS Save #10) - Factors: IMC cruise, climb to avoid weather, loss of airspeed indication, terrain warning in IMC; Activation: low altitude, inverted, 34 knots airspeed; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: trees, mountainous terrain


From that summary, it's obvious that the actual scenario under which the pilot pulled was far from “Oh look! I've lost my ASI, I'd better pull CAPS” as implied in this post.

This isn't the first time someone has selected a single emotive element from the whole range of factors that made a pilot decide to pull and then pilloried him for his decision from the safety of an armchair.

The pilot lost control of his aircraft in IMC in mountainous terrain and pulled when inverted at 34 KTS airspeed when he got a terrain warning. One factor amongst all of that was a loss of ASI.

Given the situation in which he found himself, what else should he have done?

Should he have lost control in the first place? No, nobody should but people do and unarguably, having got into that situation, if he hadn't pulled he would have died.

Thankfully, he did pull and, as a result, he lived.

I am not trying to “convert the unconvertable” to the idea that CAPS needs to be an integrated part of emergencies handling in a Cirrus. I know that there are plenty of sky gods here who wouldn't have pulled in these, or perhaps in any other, circumstances. As I said in an earlier post: “your life, your choice”.

What I am trying to do is persuade new and inexperienced Cirrus pilots to do transition training with a good CSIP and, if possible, go to a CPPP weekend and learn about how to manage and, if necessary, use this proven life saving resource properly.

What worries me about all these CAPS bashing threads is that a newly minted, low hours Cirrus pilot may wander on here and be discouraged from learning about the system and, if it comes to it, be discouraged from using it by the comments in these threads.

I really pray that that doesn't happen: I gave an example of one experienced Cirrus pilot who died with a perfectly good parachute undeployed behind him earlier in this thread. Sadly, there have been far too many others.

Set against that are the lives of the 87 people that the system has saved.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

The last couple of chute pulls in the UK were due to inadvertent flight into IMC, how about some better IMC training, then maybe we won't be raining Cirruses (?) Cirri (?) okay , very well equipped private aircraft over Banbury and the middle of Gloucester.


And before anybody decides to tell me I know F### all I've been flying for 35 years, 26 years professionally, hold ATPL/A and ATPL/H and have nearly 15 000 TT, and listening at my local flying club sometimes I want to shake people out of their complacency and shoot the authorities who have dumbed down all areas of flight training over the last 40 years.


I can see a use for BRS over difficult terrain in the engine failure case, but I can also see a lot of reasons for not flying over that terrain in the first place. As someone wrote earlier most engine failures are at low level where the chute is no use, so what do Cirrus pilots do in that case, I know of one young man who got away with it by dint of going straight back to PPL first principles, will others crash because the chute wasn't available?


Rant Over


SND

[Jonzarno]

how about some better IMC training

Yes: absolutely right! :ok:

In my last post, I talked about Cirrus specific transition training and the benefits of the CPPP programme.

They help pilots, whether instrument rated or not, to fly their aircraft as safely as possible within the constraints of their qualifications.

That said: getting more pilots instrument qualified would also be a great step forward and, hopefully, the new more accessible instrument qualifications coming to EASA land may help with that.

It's striking how many more pilots in the US regard going on to get an IR as a natural progression from their PPL.

[Pace]

1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #3) - Factors: confusing instrument behaviour, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees

Jonzarno

This was the one I was referring to and I beg the question of what the pilot thought he was doing climbing into IMC and unable to deal with "confusing interment behaviour?" !!!
Yes the idiots life was saved by the Caps but what the heck was he doing there in the first place?
Hard IMC is not a playground for incompetent pilots relying on autopilots or systems to fly the aircraft for them they have a habit of going wrong.

The Cirrus will get attention as it is the most prominent make to offer the Caps as standard and the CAPS is an exciting safety device.

when its use is promoted for events where conventional training teaches you otherwise like in FLs then it is only natural that discussions will take place on when to pull or not to pull

Pace

[mary meagher]

Well, it all comes down to money, doesn't it? You can buy a secondhand Cirrus with rocket for half a million dollars. Can somebody get me an insurance quotation for a Cirrus?

Nope, can't afford that either.

So if you are such a valuable and important person that your time is seriously worth the same as a professional football player, you can buy the plane, the rocket, and skip the training!

In the end, the lawyers set the boundaries, how much is my life worth? (not a lot, no longer under warranty). If the plane I am passenger in goes splat, how much will the underwriters have to pay out?

Believe me, for most of us, unless young, skilled, and living in the Western world, not a lot.

[Jonzarno]

Pace

I thought you said he pulled when he lost his ASI?

I have looked up the CAPS pull you now say this was.

As you quote, the summary says:


CAPS event #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #3) - Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees


Based on that you call him an “idiot”. Hmmmm.

Here is an account from someone who actually spoke to the pilot involved, I have redacted the pilots name:


“The aircraft was occupied by a single pilot, is described as a high-time Cirrus pilot with a "lot" of experience.

According to someone at the local service center who spoke to [him] shortly after the accident - [The pilot] was in IMC and all his instruments went.


So hardly a reflexive pull on losing an ASI then?

[Crash one]

It seems that this chute availability is upsetting the Darwin Awards process.

[Jonzarno]

If the plane I am passenger in goes splat, how much will the underwriters have to pay out?

If it goes splat under CAPS, rather less than if you are killed. That's why many insurers in the US will waive the insurance excess if CAPS is used.

[Pace]

The aircraft was occupied by a single pilot, is described as a high-time Cirrus pilot with a "lot" of experience.
According to someone at the local service center who spoke to [him] shortly after the accident - [The pilot] was in IMC and all his instruments went.

Jonzarno

The official recording stated water in the static system so are you saying he lost everything? If that is the case then this would be a serious worry for Cirrus.

According to someone at the local service centre sounds a wee bit vague and unfactual? :E And maybe a bit face saving by a highly embarrassed pilot

But hey this is not knocking Cirrus or the chute one bit! I am taking 50 hrs in one and am very convinced by the aircraft and the chute but hope I won't be pulling for 70% of the chute pulls quoted and if I did I would hide under a rock and pack it in

Pace

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I take it nobody ever taught him limited panel flying, or if they did just chucked one lesson at it and it was never practised again.


SND

[Jonzarno]

Pace

As I understand it, this was an early G1 so no glass PFD.

The guy was at low level in IMC in an aircraft that that was giving him confusing information.

I don't know what else, if anything, went wrong other than water in the pitot static system, but my point is that it was certainly not a reflexive pull on loss of an ASI only as claimed by your earlier post.

In those circumstances, I presume you wouldn't have pulled and probably been ok. You make your decision and he made his: I respect both positions on this.

But I do think that calling him an idiot for doing so is a bit rich!

If you are doing 50 hours in a Cirrus, please consider joining COPA and coming to a CPPP (there's one at Cambridge on the weekend of 21 June). Even the most experienced pilots find both well worth while.

SND

Neither of us knows the circumstances that he faced when he pulled the parachute.

From the account, however, we do know that he was a high time and experienced pilot so was, presumably, well familiar with partial panel work so it seems a bit unfair immediately to jump to the conclusion that he was just incompetent.

But whether he was or wasn't: he is alive and the decision to pull was his alone to make.

[tecman]

Just when you thought there could be nothing left to say in this thread....

Check out the thread in the Pacific forum.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/539527-reports-light-aircraft-down-blue-mountains.html

The video isn't great, but it definitely conveys the idea.

[maxred]

It's raining Cirrus again. I have now added it to my list of types NoT to fly in, because regardless of survivability avec BRS, they do appear to suffer from some incredible reliability issues:ouch:

[mary meagher]

Just missed the power lines? now what is the drill if you didn't miss them and got hung up?

[Jonzarno]

Mary

It has actually already happened:

CAPS event #14, Oct 2008, Spain

3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #12) - Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: power line

Everyone survived....

[EclipseN99XG]

Wow!
I am new here. Wrote a post few pages back and have not come back till now, prompted by the latest pull in Australia. Anybody seen that amazing video?
DX-QUVen9Ng

Reading all these posts I sense an "unfair" treatment of Cirrus owners. Wonder why? The Columbia has fancy screens, but nobody speaks of their owners the same way...

By the way, not having the central column/yoke, allows for a lower dash and much better forward visibility.

I have flown gliders, high wing Cessna, Cirrus, and Eclipse Jet, and I have trained for emergency in different way in the different planes.

In gliders, in Europe, I always wore a parachute! First time in Australia, renting a glider, no chute, I felt so naked that I could not fly relaxed.

The Eclipse has two engines, flies at 410, but has no chute. My wife does not like that. Now she has to learn a lot more in case of my incapacitation, than just pulling that handle.

In my years of flying I have had three engine failures. Real ones. One was the Stinson towing my glider on take off. No use for the chute there. Was lucky enough to hear it, it stopped on the runway, I took off, flew over his rudder, disengaged, and landed in front of his prop.
The second one was in our new second Cirrus. That was more a partial loss of power than a full failure. We were at 17,500, kept it at gliding range of a airport, till a Bonanza hit its tail landing and they closed that runway (lucky me) and so I sputtered to the next airport where I landed with no incident. In that one, had I found myself crossing 1000, with no airport in sight and not enough power to stop my descend, I WOULD HAVE PULLED.
Third time, you would think I am kidding, in a Cardinal, 177RG which I rented because you cannot do your commercial in a Cirrus since it has fixed gear! So here I am renting this plane, which after 50 minutes of flying around the foot hills of the rockies (where I live) decides to quit (fuel pump completely separated from case) suddenly 5 miles from base at 1200 feet. Declared and was lucky enough to glide it home.
With the jet, every year we have recurrent training and a check ride. Part of it is going to idle at 15,000 and land it from there. My point being is you better train to be ready in the machine you are flying. USING ALL THE EQUIPMENT that machine offers you. So, if the chute is part of that equipment, I had made the decision, ON THE GROUND, of the circumstances in which I would use it.
Regarding the comments about having the chute in the Cirrus makes for less prudent pilots, or lazier pilots because of the perceived safety I cite the training of military pilots with eject-able seats... They don't take more risks just because of that equipment.
I am sure that most of are here because of a fundamental common factor... OUR LOVE FOR BEING UP THERE! Like someone said here I rather see an alive stupid pilot than a dead stupid pilot, or an alive unlucky one, or an alive incapacitated one.
A final comment, the Cirrus allows for great fulfillment in both leisure flying as well as business flying. So, while other types have higher use as trainers or sightseeing platforms, the Cirrus can perform both well. When used "on business" it is a solid IFR platform, with an amazing set of avionics and great families of autopilots. Both the DFC series as well as the Garmins provide envelope protection and the latter has an hypoxia "recovery" systems.
The hours flown this way are statistically very "different hours" from the ones flown either in VFR or around the pattern.

Finally, from a public page about safety on COPA, I would like to quote the rates, which actually confute the ones here who have stated that Cirrus have higher rates than the average in general aviation.

See the web here. (https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/721.cirrus-accident-rates.aspx)

=========
Cirrus Fatal Accident Rate

Because Cirrus Design collaborates with COPA, we have access to their compilation of fleet flying hours. This enables COPA to calculate the following fatal accident rates.*

Past 36 months: 1.57

We use a 3-year average because, with a modest fleet size of 5,500 airplanes flying about 800,000 hours per year, the accident rate varies substantially with only a few accidents. By contrast, the GA fleet contains 200,000 airplanes flying about 20,000,000 hours per year, or about 40 times more aircraft flying about 30 times more hours.

In the past 36 months, there have been 35 fatal accidents and approximately 2,200,000 flying hours for a rate of 1.57 fatal accident per 100,000 hours of flying time.

Past 12 months: 1.07

In the past 12 months, there have been 9 accidents in approximately 840,000 flight hours for a rate of 1.07 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

GA fleet: 1.24 overall, 2.38 for Personal & Business flying

We compare the Cirrus fatal accident rate to the overall general aviation rate for non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft of 1.24 for 2011 (ref NTSB aviation safety statistics).

The Cirrus rates appears higher than the overall GA rate of 1.24. However, the NTSB report covers all types of GA flying, including corporate flying with professional pilots, as well as twin-engine aircraft and turbo-prop and turbojet aircraft, which skew the activity comparable to flying done by Cirrus SR2X aircraft.*

Consequently, we also compare the civil aviation accident analysis published by the NTSB, which separates the purposes of flying into Personal, Business, Instructional, Corporate and various other activities. Using that data, we determined the accident rate for Personal and Business flying to be 2.38 for 2009. The Cirrus SR2X rates compare favorably with those more comparable activities.



The fatal accident rates for Cirrus aircraft averaged over 12-months (blue) and 36-months (red) compared with the Nall report GA fatal accident rate (green) and the NTSB Personal & Business rate (grey).


*Caution on comparing fatal accident rates

Care must be taken when comparing fatal accident rates with other models or manufacturers. Because the Reliability Engineering staff at Cirrus Aircraft maintain a database of flight hours by serial number for their world-wide fleet, we have access to the estimated fleet hours for Cirrus SR2X aircraft. COPA then uses those hours with the world-wide number of accidents to compute a rate. We know of no other manufacturer that shares their fleet flying hours. And as stated above, we use both the 12-month and 36-month intervals to address the effects of a small fleet of about 1/30 of the 150,000 single-engine fixed-wind piston aircraft in the FAA database.

The NTSB and FAA fatal accident rates are focused on N-reg aircraft primarily based in the US and flight activity from a survey also based primarily in the US. Furthermore, the types of operations in the survey include commercial, business, pleasure, instructional, aerial application and other purposes. Those operations are weighted quite differently than the Cirrus fleet. For instance, commercial and instructional flying have extraordinarily few accidents and large numbers of flying hours, so when you remove those from the NTSB calculation, the remaining large number of accidents and modest number of flying hours result in a much higher accident rate. While there are some commercial and instructional flight activity in the Cirrus fleet, the proportions appear to be quite different.

Comparing the Cirrus rate to other models or manufacturers cannot be done reliably without an estimate of flying hours for those aircraft. Because the age of the Cirrus fleet, where all airplanes were produced since mid-1999, and because of the limited roles for Cirrus aircraft compared to others, any comparison is fraught with difficulty.

Please be thoughtful about how these accident rates are discussed.
===========

END RANT.

Enjoy our beautiful skies and be safe!

[007helicopter]

Planes & Helicopters (And I imagine Gliders) manage to hit power lines with or with out a Chute, in normal flight and forced landings so I do not see the risk any higher.

[007helicopter]

http://youtu.be/DX-QUVen9Ng

This CAPS pull from a few days ago also in Astralia, I understand a very new G5 model on a demo flight (stand by for what a rubbish plane, what an incompetent pilot, I would have landed it on the road etc etc)

However for me the best video ever captured to show the relatively slow descent speed under CAPS, compare this to 65 knots of forward inertia and I think a massive factor in survivability rates.

[mary meagher]

Jozarno, do you have the statistics on hand....namely, how many Cirrus have been built, are still flying. And how many have pulled the chute so far? Just wondering.

As for power lines as arrestors, the one you mention says "parachute tangled with power line wires", not that the aircraft was hung up on the wires, which was my question. There are wires and wires; we must be extra careful when approaching a field landing between trees as the wire can be nearly invisible. Its the high power lines that always worry me, whether to go over or under!


The lovely video of the parachute and cirrus slowly drifting to earth is quite convincing, also the video examining the cirrus with only a few bits knocked off on the ground....wheels, etc. HOWEVER. That parachute gently drifting down must have been on a gentle wind day. Strong wind day could be more interesting.

As for injuring people on the ground, very unlikely. Even ending up in a car park, the odds are excellent for the observers, time enough to get out of the way.

But if you would provide the statistic; the number of Cirrus built, relative to the number of chute pulls, would be most interesting.

[Jonzarno]

Mary

There have been about 5500 Cirrus built and I believe almost all are still flying although I don't know exactly how many.

By the way, that includes aircraft repaired after CAPS activations!

Here is a history of all CAPS activations:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

It's on the COPA web site but I think it's accessible to non-members. If you can't open it, please let me know.

And while I'm at it, here is a detailed account of a CAPS pull over water:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2012/01/09/early-reflections-on-caps-pull-32-by-dick-mcglaughlin-in-the-bahamas.aspx

I chose this one because it is the best documented example.

You are right to point out the question of what happens in a deployment in high winds but, of course, those same winds will have a effect on a forced landing as well.

You may also find this video interesting:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYT1UssVss&feature=youtu.be

It is a discussion of how and when the system should be used by an instructor with 3000 Cirrus hours.



I hope this is useful!

[Adrian N]

Mary,

5600 aircraft built. As of yesterday 55 airborne CAPS activations - so 1%.

That's the same percentage as the total number of BRS activations in all the aeroplanes and microlights that have been fitted with the system in the last 30 years or so.

There is always much nonsense spouted about Cirruses and CAPS. Every pilot who uses it after losing control in IMC is an idiot who should have had better training, while the comparable number of pilots who make exactly the same mistakes in other aircraft don't get called that - because they're dead. (And in America, their families often win huge damages from the aircraft manufacturers' liability insurers.) Every Cirrus pilot who uses the parachute rather than attempting a forced landing is an incompetent who shouldn't have got through basic training (I exaggerate just a little); but around 20% of the fatal accidents in high-performance singles are caused by attempted forced landings that didn't work out.

There have been 58 fatal Cirrus accidents which wouldn't have been fatal had the pilot used CAPS. 120 people died. I wonder if among those 58 there was, perhaps, one pilot who was subconsciously influenced by what he had read on internet forums and tried to pull off a forced landing or recover control, because that's what real pilots do?

Next month's Flyer magazine has a feature exploring CAPS in some depth.

[maxred]

one pilot who was subconsciously influenced by what he had read on internet forums and tried to pull off a forced landing or recover

I would seriously doubt that, and if it were to be the case, then they would need to spend more time getting out and about. Internet forums are precisely that, an on line chat forum, not a substitute for flight instruction.

Many miss the point on this thread. It is not that the BRS is any way a poor system, until recently my view was the Cirrus fleet appeared to good, reliable and serious pieces of kit. It is not the fact that pilots utilise the system. It is in place, so why not use it.

The nub of the argument/ debate, is the premise that pilots can, have, and will, get into situations, knowing the BRS is behind them, that they should NOT have gotten into in the first place. Ah, lovely glass panel, Ah, full GPS, Ah, full autopilot, Ah, a chute if it goes pear shaped. I AM SAFE.

Eh, no, what about recurrent and purchase training. I understand that this is perhaps anecdotal, but to me, that is where the debate lies. It appears to me that a lot of these chute pulls are done as almost a knee jerk, rather than suss out the issue, and if I can, land it.

[Adrian N]

Possibly - and hopefully - you are right, and none of the 58 pilots who died when they could have saved themselves were influenced by reading that people who use CAPS should have been able to recover without it. But psychological research into priming for certain behaviours suggests that the risk exists, even for people who don't need to get out more.

Do you have some examples of CAPS pulls which are "almost a knee jerk, rather than suss out the issue, and if I can, land it"? There might be one, but I don't know of it. There are, however, lots of examples of Cirrus pilots trying to "suss out the issue", then dying in the crash - using CAPS long after it could possibly save them, or just crashing without trying to use it.

I agree with you fully about training, and it's impossible to dispute that lots of Cirrus pilots have got into trouble flying into situations that they should either have avoided, or been able to cope with. But sadly the same is true of pilots of any other aircraft - just for them and their passengers, the penalty is often death.