Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden [Archive]

thborchert

6th Jun 2013, 13:59

I am sorry but you are totally wrong that is not The Cirrus stance at all which is to glide to a suitable conventional landing area and only as a last resort to CONSIDER the use of the chute!
Please show me where Cirrus state otherwise ?Don't have the time to sift through the CSIP material right now, but I am pretty sure it is in there. It is definitely COPA stance. It is also common sense: Several people have died in Cirrii trying to land them in "clear" and "easy" fields. None have died pulling the chute within parameters. Zero. Not a single one. Anyone with their wits halfway together should prefer a 100-percent chance to a 70 to 80 percent chance. But: It's (largely) a free world - take your pick. I know what I'll be doing...

As to your "child on the ground" scenario: Should it happen once at some point (and then still once more than someone on the ground getting hurt in a "normal" emergency landing), we might start considering it.

@Steve: As you can see, clear enough. Thanks!

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 14:08

Pace

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

There have been 45 Cirrus CAPS deployments and there has never been a fatal outcome (to pilot, passenger, baby on ground or puppy farm :) )when the system has been deployed within its design limits (IAS < 133 KTS). Indeed there have been saves when it has been used as fast as 186 KTS.

By contrast, there have been far to many fatal accidents which could have ended very differently if CAPS had been used.

If you have the time, I strongly suggest you watch this video:

http://vimeo.com/27887576

It is an hour long, but it makes the case very convincingly.

(Edit: click on Vimeo to watch)

GBEBZ

6th Jun 2013, 14:11

Something I learned from TV documentaries on plane crashes... (may be wrong but thought I would say it anyway), and applies looking at the photos, is that this plane's propellor was rotating at speed (idle included) when it impacted the ground, this is shown as all three blade ends are bent in a curved direction towards the plane, indicating the propellor was rotating at least a whole revolution (and possibly a lot more looking at the damage) when the plane hit the ground.

You can also see marks on the concrete path in the garden.

This shows the engine was running, if only at idle, and the propeller rotating with force for at least one revolution when the plane "landed"

Daily Mail article says: Eyewitnesses from a local website directory also saw the plane coming down.
One employee said: 'We saw the plane veer through the clouds in a strange movement, then disappear back into the clouds. We said "Blimey! It looks like that plane is in trouble!"

Read more: Pilot, 76, walks away from plane crash with just minor injuries after deploying emergency PARACHUTE which allowed his light aircraft to float to safety in a quiet Cheltenham back garden | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336815/Pilot-76-walks-away-plane-crash-just-minor-injuries-deploying-emergency-PARACHUTE-allowed-light-aircraft-float-safety-quiet-Cheltenham-garden.html#ixzz2VRglN3Lh)

6th Jun 2013, 14:29

'We saw the plane veer through the clouds in a strange movement, then disappear back into the clouds

I wonder how many 76 year olds, flying an N Reg, hold a valid IR?

wsmempson

6th Jun 2013, 14:37

Not Surrallan, surely?

baldwinm

6th Jun 2013, 14:50

Not Surrallan, surely?

I think he is about 10 years younger - and his Cirrus has a two-tone colour scheme IIRC

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 14:53

For what it's worth:

Registered Owner
Name SOUTHERN AIRCRAFT CONSULTANCY INC TRUSTEE
Street TOWN FARM
POUND LANE
City DITCHINGHAM BUNGAY State
County Zip Code NR35 - 2DN
Country UNITED KINGDOM

Pace

6th Jun 2013, 15:00

Jonzarno

I was purely clearing up a false statement regarding Cirrus official stance on using the chute in event of an engine failure! Cirrus official stance is to glide clear towards a suitable field and make a conventional forced landing!
If there is no suitable landing area to the CONSIDER the use of the chute!
Others state otherwise.
Concerning pulling the chute over a built up area where you can glide clear I would be totally opposed as I consider by doing so would be reckless to others on the ground and a totally selfish and unneeded exercise!
Other situations ? Yes I would pull the chute

Pace

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 15:02

Pace

Your life, your choice. :ok:

But please take the time to watch the video.

englishal

6th Jun 2013, 15:13

Don't start this debate again!

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 15:17

Seems to me that this system is being used because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!!!

" loss of control in IMC"
"Pitot iced over in IMC". Not a major major problem ( A P T. Cross check of instruments etc)

Haven,t watched the full video yet But i,m guessing the majority were NOT mechanical.

Frightening

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 15:26

its hardly a debate.

Some of us are pilots and others are parachute operators.

thborchert

6th Jun 2013, 15:28

Seems to me that this system is being used because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!!! Well, pilots die because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!! It's the main reason for aviation accidents by a HUGE margin. Has been since forever. "This system" will not change that. But with "this system" pilots have a (very good) chance to survive their pilot error. Explain to me how that's a bad thing. Should they just man up and die, stiff upper lip and all?

Sorry for debating this over and over again, but it's important. People are dying from not getting it. People I personally knew have. So, again, apologies, but it really IS important.

thborchert

6th Jun 2013, 15:31

Some of us are pilots and others are parachute operators.

Right. Military fighter "jocks" fall into the latter category, for example. :ugh:

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 15:33

Seems to me that this system is being used because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!!!

Yes. That mirrors the accident statistics across the whole GA fleet: the majority of accidents are pilot related.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 15:37

I was purely clearing up a false statement regarding Cirrus official stance on using the chute in event of an engine failure! Cirrus official stance is to glide clear towards a suitable field and make a conventional forced landing!
If there is no suitable landing area to the CONSIDER the use of the chute!
No longer false.
Two sources:

1) Cirrus Aircraft web page to support training on utilisation of CAPS parachute recovery system: CAPS™ WORKS. TRAINING MAKES IT WORK FOR YOU. (http://cirrusaircraft.com/caps/)

2) Cirrus Aircraft Pilot Operating Handbook 13772-005 issued for G5 models states in the Emergency Procedure for an engine failure as follows:

"If altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to Section 10, Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) for CAPS deployment scenarios and landing considerations."

Then Section 10 in the same POH states the following:

"Landing Required in Terrain not Permitting a Safe Landing

If a forced landing on an unprepared surface is required CAPS activation is recommended unless the pilot in command concludes there is a high likelihood that a safe landing can be accomplished. If a condition requiring a forced landing occurs over rough or mountainous terrain, over water out of gliding distance to land, over widespread ground fog or at night, CAPS activation is strongly recommended. Numerous fatalities that have occurred in Cirrus aircraft accidents likely could have been avoided if pilots had made the timely decision to deploy CAPS.

While attempting to glide to an airfield to perform a power off landing, the pilot must be continuously aware of altitude and ability to successfully perform the landing. Pilot must make the determination by 2000' AGL if the landing is assured or if CAPS will be required."

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 15:42

Military fighter "jocks" fall into the latter category, for example

Well the Brits are still taught to do a forced landings in single engine jets with engine outs.

And if the bang out and later its found that they didn't have to they won't be flying mil jets again.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 15:43

Don't start this debate again!
As others have pointed out, this debate influences the decision to utilise the parachute recovery system. The CAPS cynics are known to have influenced at least two Cirrus pilots who have died when they attempted an off-airport landing without deploying CAPS. When folks stop stating misinformation about the reality of 34 CAPS events with survivors (http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSSavesAndFatalAccidents.aspx), then we'll stop debunking the misinformation.

Cheers
Rick

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 15:45

Quote:
Military fighter "jocks" fall into the latter category, for example
Well the Brits are still taught to do a forced landings in single engine jets with engine outs.

And if the bang out and later its found that they didn't have to they won't be flying mil jets again.

And if they don't bang out when they should have, they won't fly anything again. Ever. :sad:

thborchert

6th Jun 2013, 15:49

Well the Brits are still taught to do a forced landings in single engine jets with engine outs. Show me! (the relevant part of the RAF manual, that is)

And if the bang out and later its found that they didn't have to they won't be flying mil jets again. Show me! (an example of a) a British pilot having survived a forced landing in a single engine jet, and b) a pilot who bailed and got fired for it)

Because, no offense, but I don't buy it.

FWIW, the hard bail out altitude for German Air Force F-4 Phantom pilots in case of trouble is 10,000 feet. I say again: 10,000 feet.

belowradar

6th Jun 2013, 15:50

As a CSIP who attended Cirrus training update in Holland a few months back
I have to say that the message from Cirrus was loud and clear - if faced with power failure away from an airport don't deliberate pull the chute !

Pilots have died in Cirrus aircraft where a chute pull would have saved them

Yes each scenario requires pilot judgement but the decision height for deployment should be briefed on every single departure and if PFL /midair/control problem / loss of control / inadvertent IMC / illness or part incapacitation then pull while you have height and are able

Great debate and fantastic advert for the chutes capability - it will be interesting to find out what happened in this situation

englishal

6th Jun 2013, 15:51

Well the Brits are still taught to do a forced landings in single engine jets with engine outs.

RIP Flt Lt Jon Egging

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 15:59

Seems to me that this system is being used because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!!!
Yup. About 90% of the determined causes of Cirrus fatal accidents were pilot-related causes. About 70% of all General Aviation accidents were pilot-related causes. It's us, not the planes. So, we agree.

The issue at hand is whether you would sentence to death any pilot who make an error? The innovation of a parachute recovery system ensures that Cirrus pilots have another option.

So far, we judge that no CAPS deployment was done for frivolous or simple reasons. Loss of control ranks as the number one factor in general aviation fatal accidents, no matter what the aircraft. Simple solutions, like suggesting the pilot needs to cross-check their instruments, have not been a sufficient intervention to reduce that factor over the past decade.

Yet, the recent increase in utilisation of the Cirrus parachute system has occurred at the same time as we see a reduction in fatal accidents. Just 3 fatal accidents in the past 9 months while 5 survivable Cirrus parachute deployments. This compares favorably with the fall of 2011 when 8 Cirrus fatal accidents happened in 3 months. In the 18 months since then 12 fatal accidents and 9 survivable parachute deployments

Something has changed in the Cirrus pilot community.

The current fatal accident rate in Cirrus aircraft has dropped to 1.16 fatals per 100,000 hours of flying time for the past 12 months and 1.63 for the past 36 months (longer periods smooth out the effects of a small fleet size compared to GA fleet).

Cheers
Rick

Pace

6th Jun 2013, 16:10

Clear_Prop

6th Jun 2013, 16:15

What's all this about nobody ever died after CAPS deployment?

Does that statement conveniently ignore the incident last year (or 2011) when a pilot deployed CAPS and then followed no further emergency drills? I believe the outcome was an engine fire and all on board were burned to death before the aircraft reached the ground.

Maybe somebody has a link to the report?

englishal

6th Jun 2013, 16:20

Moot point. That accident was not survivable in any aeroplane, other than possibly one with an ejector seat.

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 16:23

Clearprop

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

In that accident, there was a collision between two aircraft. The CAPS system was not deployed by the pilot but was triggered by the impact.

CharlieDeltaUK

6th Jun 2013, 16:23

I just watched the video. Quite informative. Seemed to me like a considered approach to saving lives in a world where pilots make mistakes. The case for not pulling the chute isn't supported by the evidence. It doesn't rule out a pilot becoming a hazard to persons on the ground, but that's not a risk we can readily reduce to nil in any event.

Eeek That was close

6th Jun 2013, 16:38

I have one of these things and I have to admit I've never paused to work out some specific conditions when I'd automatically reach for the big red handle first and think later. I suppose I should.

Badly losing orientation in IMC, a heart attack, collision or heading towards something even a sparrow wouldn't land on are candidates. My aircraft is a 600kg and I also fly gliders, so tendency would be that if I still have wings and I can see grass, I'll give it a go.

I applaud this guy. At least he made a decision and did it. Too many people get killed by indecision - I know dithering has nearly had me a few times.

Pace

6th Jun 2013, 16:45

Charlie

You most certainly can reduce the risk to nil if you can glide clear of the built up area! To pull the chute when you do not need to is cowardly and shows total disregard for others in the built up areas as well as a lack of piloting skills!

Pace

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 16:57

You most certainly can reduce the risk to nil if you can glide clear of the built up area! To pull the chute when you do not need to is cowardly and shows total disregard for others as well as a lack of piloting skills
Pace, please think through your suggestion. Nil? To whom?

And you say "when you do not need to" and then associate that decision with pilot skills. Hmmm...

If you can glide clear, then you have control, right?
If you have lost control, then you can't glide clear, right?

Witness comments published in the news articles seem consistent about a few things that suggest this pilot was losing control and acted promptly to survive a bad situation:

* one witness reports the plane come out of and going into the clouds

* another reports climbing into the clouds

* several report hearing the sounds of deployment, perhaps the rocket whoosh or the crack sound of the canopy inflating (sailors anyone?)

(Fortunately, this is a more recent model and likely has recorded flight data, so the investigators will learn of the flight profile prior to deployment.)

Cirrus pilots need to decide if they can land safely before they descend below a hard-deck altitude. That's the altitude below which the CAPS parachute has insufficient time to deploy successfully. 2000 feet is recommended, and no one has died when the parachute was deployed above 1000 feet and airspeed less than 190 knots. Survivable deployments have happened at slightly below 400 feet, but the ground impact was coincident with the tail drop.

Pilots of other planes have no such choice. They have to continue to fly the plane into the crash, arriving with flying speed to destroy things and fuel to burn.

My request is that you think through what a Cirrus pilot must consider in situations like loss of engine power, spatial disorientation, cascading instrument failures, etc. Baldly claiming that greater pilot skills will recover or avoid these situations seems unjustified.

Cheers
Rick

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 17:00

Pace

The nail has been 3/4 hit !!!!!!

We are giving "weaker" pilots a false sense of security.I'll just pop into the cloud I,ll be alright, I'll pull the chute if i lose control etc etc if you can,t glide clear you shouldn,t be taking that route !!!!

Q? Can u still manouvre the a/c with the parachute open?

gasman123

6th Jun 2013, 17:02

I need to support Pace here. There is more to it than the life of the pilot - if you decide to take to the air in this way then you are accepting an element of risk; it is beholden on us to minimise the risk to others on the ground, even if this means increasing the risk to ourselves. We are not military pilots flying to save lives - we are flying generally for fun. This changes the gameplan considerably.

i.e. in the event of an engine failure glide clear if possible, then deploy a chute. If no eight to glide clear - deploy chute. We don't know the details so its all conjecture. However at 2000ft there is plenty of clear ground within reach around Cheltenham.

Pulling chute over a built up area when there is a chance to glide clear places lives at risk unnecessarily and adversely affects the reputation of GA.

Comment from the Echo website tonight to illustrate the usual responses
“Sadly anyone living in the area knew this was inevitable, the planes on approach to Staverton have been getting lower and closer in recent weeks. Its only a matter of time before a real tragedy occurs, something must be done to stop them flying over such a populated area. What would have happened if it had been in one of the many school playgrounds in the area at playtime?”

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 17:04

claiming that greater pilot skills will recover or avoid these situations seems unjustified

It doesn't to those of us with multiple thousands of hours who have through planning and making sure that we have escape routes have never been in the situation that a parachute is required.

As the previous poster says it is the talent limited pilots getting themselves into way out of their depths which needs to be sorted.

And I wouldn't have thought you could control it maybe that will be a mark two version.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 17:10

It doesn't rule out a pilot becoming a hazard to persons on the ground, but that's not a risk we can readily reduce to nil in any event.
Agreed, but several aspects of utilizing the CAPS parachute minimize the risk to persons on the ground:

* people hear the parachute deployment, as reported in this incident

* descent at 1700 fpm under canopy gives people 35 seconds from 1000 feet to react and move, as reported in this incident (also note that at least 2 people had time to make video recordings of this plane under canopy!)

* descent at 17 knots (1700 fpm) involves about 1/12th the energy of impacting at stall speed of 60 knots

* descent at 17 knots involves about 1/34th the energy of a spin speed of 100 knots (from recorded data of other Cirrus accidents)

* after a CAPS deployment, there has never been a post-impact fire

So, agreed, the risk will not be nil. But it seems quite improved, eh?

Cheers
Rick

funfly

6th Jun 2013, 17:11

After having owned three aircraft, if I bought another today I would insist on a parachute recovery system.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 17:17

We are giving "weaker" pilots a false sense of security.I'll just pop into the cloud I,ll be alright, I'll pull the chute if i lose control etc etc if you can,t glide clear you shouldn,t be taking that route !!!!
Hard to know if this is true or not. Certainly, the CAPS cynics believe it to be true. But how would you measure it?

One aspect of the success of the Cirrus SR2X has been to bring new pilots into flying. What you call a false sense of security may actually be an attractive level of safety.

Yet, it isn't those new pilots who show up in fatal accident reports. Over half of the pilots had more than 800 hours of total time. Only a couple had less than 200 hours total time. And Cirrus has successfully equipped several university and military training academies with parachute-equipped airplanes.

Now, time-in-type matters a lot. But every Cirrus pilot starts out at zero time in a new model.

Frankly, we see too many tragic aviation accidents attributed to pilot error, whether or not the plane was a Cirrus. Yet, somehow, this and other aviation forum discussions focus on the "weaker" pilots in a Cirrus. It's not them, it's us. All of us who fly single-engine fixed-wing aircraft.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 17:21

Q? Can u still manouvre the a/c with the parachute open?
No.

From recorded data in another CAPS event, the plane under canopy with full engine power simply rotates like a carousel. Unlike a paraglider, the motor is not powerful enough and the canopy is round and too large.

The first few frames of one video seems to suggest that this plane was moving in the direction of the engine slightly but turning like the earlier documented event.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 17:26

Comment from the Echo website tonight to illustrate the usual responses
“Sadly anyone living in the area knew this was inevitable, the planes on approach to Staverton have been getting lower and closer in recent weeks. Its only a matter of time before a real tragedy occurs, something must be done to stop them flying over such a populated area. What would have happened if it had been in one of the many school playgrounds in the area at playtime?”
Well, this comment suggests that those flying airplanes without a parachute -- or a Cirrus pilot who does not deploy the CAPS parachute -- will be the cause of a tragedy.

Today, we saw how much open space can receive a Cirrus under canopy with out hitting a playground or any of the people within earshot of the rocket.

Now consider if that Cirrus pilot had attempted to glide clear instead of deploying a parachute -- how much damage would occur? Flying at least at 60 knots or higher above stall. Carrying fuel. Impacting horizontally into occupied buildings. Or bouncing off trees, cars, light standards, etc.

If we wish to advocate for continued use of airports near developed areas, we better have a good story. Seems like today's outcome was one such good story.

Cheers
Rick

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 17:33

Rick

So unless a wing has departed or ailerons stuck or tail problems A ppl pilot should have a fair /good chance of landing clear of built up areas!!!!!!

mikehallam

6th Jun 2013, 17:35

Prop blades folded in the above photo, so engine still turning, perhaps throttled back - but not stopped ??

mikehallam

Torque Tonight

6th Jun 2013, 17:36

Pictures show damage to all three prop blade tips, so it appears that the engine was running as it touched down.

FG_data

6th Jun 2013, 17:45

No doubt he is, but I don't think he steered away from houses as one witness just said on the local news, kinda hard under the chute!

Bless the British public!

mary meagher

6th Jun 2013, 17:53

sdbeach (which I presume is San Diego?) certainly is convincing regarding the merits of the Cirrus handy get you down arrangement.

Do the guys who write off a Cirrus go out and buy another one? at what point do the insurance underwriters decide to stop underwriting? Seems to me you would be paying a hefty premium after a couple of descents, but probably the owners have deep pockets. This aircraft is owned by a Trust? if it was owned by a syndicate and I was a partner, I would not be amused.

We have to repack our glider parachutes every year....and after 8 or 10 years, replace the canopy....how much does it cost to replace/repack a Cirrus chute? how often is it done?

I notice that the one fatal descent mentioned had something to do with a midair; so you still have to maintain a good look out while tooling around the countryside....

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 17:56

Mary

A number of Cirrus CAPS aircraft have actually flown again and, in the US, several insurers will waive the insurance excess if the system is used.

The repack interval is 10 years.

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 18:03

FG

I certainly dont think the pilot is a hero !!!!

As SD said "you can't steer the a/c " !!!????

If he was on Final App. He should have had his escape routes in mind ! I,ve flown into Gloucester many times and there are escape routes away from houses,

If he had a control malfunction. I' ll take it all back!!

P1

stevelup

6th Jun 2013, 18:13

This aircraft is owned by a Trust? if it was owned by a syndicate and I was a partner, I would not be amused.

That's because it is N reg - the legal owner has to be a US trustee. You can't infer anything about the aircrafts ownership from this.

We have to repack our glider parachutes every year....and after 8 or 10 years, replace the canopy....how much does it cost to replace/repack a Cirrus chute? how often is it done?

Every ten years. Cost is well in excess of $10K

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 18:48

So unless a wing has departed or ailerons stuck or tail problems A ppl pilot should have a fair /good chance of landing clear of built up areas!!!!!!
No doubt. If a pilot has power and control, then landing should be assured on an airport runway.

Oh, no power? Now you are stuck with a descent rate that may challenge any pilot, especially one with a modest glide ratio. FYI, my Cirrus SR22 has a 9.6 glide ratio, so from 2000 feet AGL I get about 3 nm before impact -- assuming I'm really good at it. Seems to me that built-up areas often exceed a 3 nm radius, so that seems to reduce my chances to just fair, eh?!

The key issue for Cirrus pilots who have the choice of utilising the CAPS parachute system -- why persist in recovery when an airport runway is not assured?

The performance history of CAPS deployments shows a favorable outcome -- no fatalities or post-impact fires when activated within demonstrated parameters.

The fatal results of some off-airport landings shows a deadly possibility -- just a few people are 100% dead.

The lower energy upon impact lessens the risk to structures and people on the ground

But these debates continue . . .

Unfortunately, Cirrus pilots who succumb to the line of reasoning evidenced here -- that they are weaker, that real pilots can glide clear of built-up areas, that real pilots don't need no stinking parachutes -- those pilots may die with a perfectly good parachute behind them. And that's what motivates the Cirrus community to rebut any misinformation that suggests the parachute safety feature is not worthy of consideration when you need it. Then practice and prepare for using it.

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 18:55

And that's what motivates the Cirrus community to rebut any misinformation that suggests the parachute safety feature is not worthy of consideration when you need it.

Its only worthy if your talent limited. The amount of risk it removes isn't worth the extra fuel and cost of maintaining the chute.

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 18:57

I can think of at least 45 pilots who wouldn't agree with you. :ugh:

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:01

sdbeach (which I presume is San Diego?) certainly is convincing regarding the merits of the Cirrus handy get you down arrangement. Just the facts Mary. (And yes, my Cirrus SR22 has been based in San Diego for 13 years.)
Do the guys who write off a Cirrus go out and buy another one? at what point do the insurance underwriters decide to stop underwriting? Seems to me you would be paying a hefty premium after a couple of descents, but probably the owners have deep pockets.
As Jonzarno replied, insurers of Cirrus aircraft have taken an informed view.

Many policies recognize the reduced expense and significant survivability of parachute deployments, so they either waive the excess (I presume that's what we call deductible) or set the excess to zero for such accidents.

Furthermore, they tell us that the costs of replacing a Cirrus are far less than the medical or legal costs involved with fatal accidents. Makes sense once you hear them tell the stories, even though writing off an expensive airplane seems costly.

One aviation insurance executive puts it succinctly: "Pull the CAPS handle! We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate!"

Yes, most Cirrus pilots get insurance claim checks quickly and buy another Cirrus very soon after. Some within weeks, others after a bit longer.

Occasionally, a CAPS pilot will succumb to the criticism and trauma of the event and stay away from flying, in a couple of cases never flying again. The people who post on the PPRuNe and AOPA forums, in particular, have been quite brutal. Even to the point of dissing a CAPS pilot who has multiple ratings, thousands of hours and serves as a volunteer medical doctor to Haiti.

It's yet another level of tragedy. Yet another motivation for some of us to rebut misinformation.

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 19:03

Maybe if those pilots had invested the money in instrument training and also kept themselves more current they also would never have crashed.

they also might have never been in the situation because with out the chute they wouldn't even attempt what they were doing.

Have a chute but fly as if you didn't.

Just because I have smoke hood and a fire extinguisher in the back doesn't mean I can light a barbeque in the emergency exit row.

belowradar

6th Jun 2013, 19:03

If you can glide clear you will but you must make a decision to deploy before reaching your recommended deployment minimum altitude

Who is going to throw up their hands and say I must now die just in case I land on top of somebody ? It is not a definite that you will kill someone landing under CAPs in a built up area as this event demonstrates? It would be pretty dumb to sacrifice yourself due to an idealised concept of honour when you are more likely to take out a garden shed or a few tiles on a roof

Most people are able to run from danger when required and the workers heard this aircraft descending

Agaricus bisporus

6th Jun 2013, 19:10

The fact that the engine was still running indicates this event was not handled correctly - that's a very fundamental omission indeed.

my Cirrus SR22 has a 9.6 glide ratio, so from 2000 feet AGL I get about 3 nm before impact -- assuming I'm really good at it. Seems to me that built-up areas often exceed a 3 nm radius, so that seems to reduce my chances to just fair, eh?!
wtf would you be doing over the centre of a 6 mile wide city at that altitude??? Does that parachute somehow exempt you from the glide clear rule then?

why persist in recovery when an airport runway is not assured?
I'm sorry, but these quotes perfectly illustrate why so many of us are so concerned about the attitudes that develop when a "get out of jail skills-free" card is introduced into a business that requires the exercise of skills, plus the responsibility to use them correctly.

Frankly it scares the crap out of me that there are "pilots" who "think" like this.
It strikes me as being a very similar mindset to the advent of mobile phones bringing on the massive increase of ill/unequipped idiots going into the mountains or out to sea on the basis that "if it goes wrong we'll just call up the SAR like they do on TV".

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 19:10

Agari

You beat me to it !!!!

I,m pretty sure you shouldn,t be flying over urban areas if you can,t land clear in a single engine in the event of the donkey stopping.

3 nm ???? You should then be planning for your worst gliding distance then ???

Stay safe. Think before you fly !!!!!

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:13

I can think of at least 45 pilots who wouldn't agree with you.

Actually, Jon, it's 70 people who have survived 34 CAPS saves.

And that's what motivates the Cirrus community to rebut any misinformation that suggests the parachute safety feature is not worthy of consideration when you need it.
Its only worthy if your talent limited. The amount of risk it removes isn't worth the extra fuel and cost of maintaining the chute.
Well, mad_jock, that's a variation on the it-will-never-happen-to-me argument.

I presume that you would judge any pilot in a CAPS deployment accident to be talent limited. That makes your argument pretty convincing, eh?

And if you are the one making the risk-reward calculation, you can judge things to your liking. Probably quite different to those of us who enjoy flying with passengers who understand the value of a successful safety innovation.

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 19:13

Saab Dastard

6th Jun 2013, 19:16

I think we need a Cirrus Hamster Wheel sticky thread, as in JB.

:E

SD

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:22

Maybe if those pilots had invested the money in instrument training and also kept themselves more current they also would never have crashed.
Maybe.

Except pilot currency doesn't deal with mechanical failures in VMC that have prompted several CAPS pulls. Oh, sorry, you skeptics believe that any pilot should be able to glide clear of any bad landing situation.

FYI, at least three Cirrus pilots have died when trying to stretch a glide to an open field or a runway. One was known to be a CAPS skeptic, declared an emergency, attempted to land in a housing development with just curbs and no houses, caught a wingtip and the plane cartwheeled. He and his wife in the front seat were declared brain dead while their niece in the rear seat walked out of the wreckage uninjured. He was a former Columbia 400 owner and known to diss the parachute, just like you guys. Must have lacked talent, eh?

they also might have never been in the situation because with out the chute they wouldn't even attempt what they were doing.
Yup, if they were like you skeptics, then we would never have more pilots attracted to personal air transportation. Only pure pilots would be allowed to fly, as defined by you skeptics. And general aviation would wither away.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:28

wtf would you be doing over the centre of a 6 mile wide city at that altitude??? Does that parachute somehow exempt you from the glide clear rule then?
Nope. No exemption.

But wtf? When flying into one of several San Diego airports under the terminal control area, ATC requires low-level flight over built-up areas that extend for about 20 miles. Flying into some urban airports with air traffic letters of agreement keep us low on variations of approaches before we are sequenced into the final approach traffic for landing. When departing an urban airport and encountering a loss of engine power, there can be few options for pilots to land.

Oh, I have a parachute! Other than these snarky criticisms here, it provides a safety feature that saves lives -- and encourages greater involvement in personal air transportation.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:32

I,m pretty sure you shouldn,t be flying over urban areas if you can,t land clear in a single engine in the event of the donkey stopping.
And you are completely correct but again the attitude is this doesn't matter because they have the chute and through lack of understanding and planning put themselves in positions that twin drivers wouldn't go.
Now I shouldn't be flying where I live and work? Oh, and flying a twin solves all problems?

Instead, I plan and train and practice. As do many Cirrus pilots. But because you folks have a misguided sense of privilege not available to mere pilots of modern Cirrus aircraft, these debates continue to diminish the safety record and survivability of the parachute system. Obviously, I'm fascinated by your attitudes. Good thing I don't live with them as constant reminders of how not to treat innovators.

Cheers
Rick

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 19:35

Irrespective of how good a pilot is, or isn't, some relevant ANO words are here:

(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area in the event of a power unit failure.

Piper.Classique

6th Jun 2013, 19:39

It isn't just the Cirrus that has a parachute. A lot of microlights are parachute equipped, and the exact same debate goes on. I've heard pilots admit to being in unlandable areas in dubious weather but going there anyway because they had a parachute. For information, a major emphasis in microlight training in France is about staying over landable areas. But now that most microlights have reliable engines it seems pilots forget this.
Hmm.

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 19:40

Aye Saab

Turbo Hamster - YouTube

What this hammster needs is a parachute for when it catchs its nuts on the wheel.

Mind you any sensible hamster wouldn't get there nuts caught to begin with or wouldn't go anywhere near the wheel. Never mind in the dark.

And flying a twin doesn't solve your problems if you fly it in a uneducated manner. Fly over mountains which are higher than your drift down and you are stuffed.

I see its your right to fly aircraft in an unsafe manner. The chute just lets you survive when things go wrong.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 19:44

Irrespective of how good a pilot is, or isn't, some relevant ANO words are here: ...Yup, good rules to fly by.

So, what are pilots of other types of aircraft doing crashing into houses, apartment buildings, railroad tracks -- and that's the headlines in just the past week? All of those involved fatalities. A couple of them injured people in the houses.

Cheers
Rick

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 19:46

I don,t think some of these guys fully understand the legalities of the post from ST above.

It will be interesting to see what the CAA have to say.

Its obvious there are pilots out there think they are exempt from this rule. I think the courts know better.

Agaricus bisporus

6th Jun 2013, 19:46

sd, sure, but the crimes of Cheltenham seem chaste in San Diego... (ahem!)

Not the same thing, your SD example is one where the parachute is a valuable and valid tool. It is also legal to fly like that - I gather - in the US. It is strictly forbidden here.

Dying by stretching the glide when you have a recovery system is clearly daft, what we're concerned about is people using them as an excuse to exempt them from good decision making and obeying the rules. Even if you have one of these things you are still - in UK - bound to be able to glide clear of a congested area and that I suspect will prove true even if under a parachute. If you are going to deploy it you'd better be sure you won't drift onto a town which didn't happen here. If you will drift onto a town you'd better be able to glide clear. If you can't do either I think its a clear breach of Rule 5.1.whichever it is and you just shouldn't have been there in the first place. There can't be many places where you couldn't satisfy one or the other of those conditions.

The parachute should be for alighting softly in terrain where a successful forced landing is unlikely - mountains, swamps, heavy crops, not cities. I think it's been established that Cirrus themselves see it this way, land conventionally if possible, if not deploy the chute.

Jude098

6th Jun 2013, 19:47

sdbeach: If we wish to advocate for continued use of airports near developed areas, we better have a good story."

The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's. But there is at least an acre of allotments within 300 yards! But no-one was hurt and that is what matters.

Just look at what the developers are trying to do at Wellesbourne. So hope you are all going to log onto Wellesbournes website Wellesbourne News and Events (http://www.wellesbourneairfield.com/newsandevents.htm) to find out how to object to the planning application!Stratford-on-Avon District Council: E-Planning (http://apps.stratford.gov.uk/eplanning/AppDetail.aspx?appkey=MJ6NQWPM00C00) and Public Consultation » Loxley Park (http://www.loxleypark.co.uk/public-consultation/)

Strangely I was talking on the phone to my mother who lives near there and she said that "some aircraft was really loud and that it can't have been me as I was talking to her". Not that the C150 I fly sounds anything like an SR22!!! Must say I assumed it was an RAF aircraft on a training exercise, its engine notes bouncing off the nearby hills.

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 19:50

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 19:56

what we're concerned about is people using them as an excuse to exempt them from good decision making and obeying the rules.

One feature of the arguments presented by Sdbeach is the amount of factual evidence that he presents. The video I posted earlier contains much more.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 19:57

EDMJ

6th Jun 2013, 20:06

The comparison between how to handle chute deployment in a microlight and in a Cirrus doesn't hold water. The former are usually very light, with a very low stall speed and sledom require more than 100-200m landing distance. Hence, the average microlight pilot stands a good chance of making a succesful forced landing. A Cirrus, on the other hand, in comparison seems to me to be a big, heavy and not very sprightly thing with a lot higher stall speed and requiring a much longer landing distance. How are the chances of the average Cirrus pilot making a succesful forced landing in view of this?

I don't fly a Cirrus but if I did then I would be reaching for the red handle much quicker than in the Tecnam P92 I currently fly, in the latter probably only in case of controllability problems.

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 20:10

we get the drift now.

The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.

Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.

The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.

Actually no.

I don't regard myself as a "gash pilot" I am instrument rated, very current and fly about 250 hours a year, although I clearly don't have as much talent as you.

The chute was one of the main reasons I bought my SR22.

Not because I planned to go mountain flying in the middle of a thunderstorm at night and thought it would be OK because I have the chute, but because I often fly with my family.

None of them is a pilot (although two of them have done the excellent Partner In Command course run by COPA and which trains them in how to deal with pilot incapacitation).

If something were to happen to me during a flight, I don't want my last thought on this earth to be that I have killed them as well.

Now if I only had the talent to fly my way out of that problem...... :8

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 20:12

A Cirrus, on the other hand, in comparison seems to me to be a big, heavy and not very sprightly thing with a lot higher stall speed and requiring a much longer landing distance. How are the chances of the average Cirrus pilot making a succesful forced landing in view of this?

So you would take this into account where you fly one, right?

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 20:13

The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.

So your in that group then. but are going for the even rarer event of you dropping dead at the controls.

BTW what sort of car do you drive because its way way more likely to happen while driving.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 20:15

The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's.
It is indeed trouble. The airport where I did my first solo (Ipswich) was closed after local housing was allowed to be built close by. The householders used to complain every time the wind required a particular runway direction to be used. They won. The airport is no longer recognisable as such. Light aircraft dropping out of the skies on parachutes will never help the case for the long term survival of an airfield, will it?
Ah, the challenges of land use planning near airports. This is something that I know of in detail -- at least under California rules with the backing of our FAA. For a fascinating story, check out A tale of two stories (http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/metro/20070513-9999-lz1n13tower.html)

I strongly encourage local pilots and aviation supporters to become involved with local land use decisions. That's the only way I know of thwarting the bogus economic and development arguments that have played out in the US. Hopefully, some of you will be inspired to do similar work in your local jurisdictions.

As for planes with parachutes dropping into backyard gardens near airports, the press coverage today seems to quote many relieved residents and nearby workers. Perhaps that's an opening. Anyone interested in pursuing this with local airport and aviation authorities? Happy to point you to supportive Cirrus owners and pilots who have the data and passion for advocacy.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 20:22

FleetFlyer

6th Jun 2013, 20:34

I've got to say, Rick puts forward a pretty compelling argument.

To paraphrase; its better to fly badly and live 100% of the time than to fly well and die 1% of the time.

I still believe that having a chute means that some of those who are not qualified by either training or experience will exceed their personal limits because they have a chute. This, in these brief moments when its all going wrong, means that those concerned are at greater risk of death than those being flown by the same pilot who is flying conservatively in the same conditions in an aircraft that is not CAPS equipped.

Sure there are accidents where CAPS is the only way to survive, and that alone is reason enough to have a chute. However, there needs to be some sort training to ensure that knowledge of having this 'get out of jail free' card does not exempt one from the same standard of airmanship expected of a pilot who does not have a chute at his disposal.

This is absolutely not intended to suggest that those who elect to pull the chute are sub-optimal pilots because they can't recover from a bad situation.

It is however intended to suggest that those who get themselves in over their heads because they know they have a chute are sub-optimal pilots.

Please note the difference.

Jonzarno

6th Jun 2013, 20:35

Quote:
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
So your in that group then. but are going for the even rarer event of you dropping dead at the controls.

BTW what sort of car do you drive because its way way more likely to happen while driving.

No: just giving another example of one reason for choosing a plane with a chute.

And, by the way, one of the successful deployments in the Cirrus fleet was exactly this: the pilot was taken ill and his passenger pulled the chute.

I'd also still use it every time for an engine failure if I didn't have a guaranteed runway made.

In fairness, I used to think as you do and believed dead sticking was the right choice. What caused me to change my mind? Three things:

A long conversation with two of the highest hours and best qualified Cirrus (and other Technically Advanced Aircraft) instructors out there in which they both convinced me that they themselves would do this. No lack of talent there, I can assure you!

Secondly, the time I spent doing emergencies training in the full motion simulator that they operate in Las Vegas.

Thirdly, the evidence collected by COPA as summarised in the video I posted.

In answer to your other question: a Merc. If I could get a similar safety enhancement for it, I would. The fact that I can't doesn't stop me driving it, but that's not a reason for not having a plane with a chute.

EDMJ

6th Jun 2013, 20:40

@shytorque: Of course I would, however as a matter of fact things happen a lot faster in a Cirrus and there are less suitable emergency landing areas available. In other words, the likelihood of an average Cirrus pilot botching up an emergency landing is a lot higher than for an average 3-axis microlight pilot.

Many years ago, a Bonanza departed Copenhagen Airport, entered IMC, went out of control and ultimately crashed into a house. Pilot dead, house destroyed (nobody at home, luckily). Third party insurance in Denmark rocketed afterwards. What if that had been a Cirrus with a deplyoed BRS?

Anyway, the conclusions drawn in this thread as to whether the Staverton accident was handled correctly ("the engine was clearly running so he shouldn't have pulled the chute") are in view of the available FACTS absurdly premature.

P1DRIVER

6th Jun 2013, 20:40

I think the idea is very good in Certain circumstances !!!

BUT you are missing the fundamental points. Pilots are flying beyond their experience, They are running out of fuel,They are flying in icing conditions, they are flying over inhospitable terrain, flying in IMC. Their mindset is wrong !!!!!

One slide says there was a 700 cloud base !! Single engine ?????? Not very wise in my book.

But hey, Carry on if you have a parachute to save you.

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 20:50

I've got to say, Rick puts forward a pretty compelling argument.

To paraphrase; its better to fly badly and live 100% of the time than to fly well and die 1% of the time.
Thanks for a succinct summary. I like the part about living and not dying! ;)

I still believe that having a chute means that some of those who are not qualified by either training or experience will exceed their personal limits because they have a chute. ... However, there needs to be some sort training to ensure that knowledge of having this 'get out of jail free' card does not exempt one from the same standard of airmanship expected of a pilot who does not have a chute at his disposal.
Indeed. In the fall of 2011, the Cirrus community experienced 8 fatal accidents in 3 months -- and 5 of those were flown by pilots who likely had limited training, either from flying an aircraft purchased used without transition training, or a rental or flying club plane with a minimal check out.

That is not good.

Consequently, COPA, the Cirrus owners and pilots association, collaborated with Cirrus Aircraft to undertake a major expansion of the training resources for utilisation of the CAPS parachute system. See www.cirrusaircraft.com/caps (http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/caps)

All in the context of a significant effort to expand the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) world-wide and the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot program respectively. More training resources conducted by more Cirrus-knowledgeable instructors.*

It is however intended to suggest that those who get themselves in over their heads because they know they have a chute are sub-optimal pilots.
Please note the difference.
And hopefully others will be very careful with the grammar if they try to paraphrase your distinction. The word "because" is crucial to the effectiveness of your statement. Yet too many CAPS skeptics feel free to ignore that distinction and simply collapse it as we've seen in this thread.

Cheers
Rick

* In the fatal accident history of Cirrus aircraft, there have been 8 fatals with instructors in the right seat. Three of those instructors had less than 30 hours of time-in-type and appear to have contributed to putting the aircraft and pilot-under-training in risky situations, such as performing a return to airport maneuver at pattern altitude, or overcontrolling the bank angle after flying through the final approach course. Choose your Cirrus instructors wisely.

Pace

6th Jun 2013, 20:58

P1Driver has it right

Any pilot who above a city and looses the engine while being capable of gliding clear is a selfish Basta+d Yellow bellied and incompetent if he pulls the chute with total disregard for where he comes down.
One day it will be into a childrens play ground.

There was a much publicized accident where a pilot flying his Girlfriend IMC thought his destination was going to be 2000 foot cloudbase.

getting there the cloudbase was low and the incompetent pilot elected to try and fly an ILS. Making a bad job of it he was told to go around and fly the missed approach.

The incompetent pilot could not even fly a missed approach and lost control in a turn.

He pulled the chute which saved him and his girlfriend but she refused to fly with him again.

I love the Cirrus and the chute but it cannot be a replacement for solid flying skills and that is my concern.

Too many accidents are pilots being where they are incapable of being and relying on the chute as a get me out of jail for free card

Pace

PPRuNe Towers

6th Jun 2013, 20:58

Offered as a counterpoint to evangelism:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/486324-cirrus-pilots-dangerous.html

Rob

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 21:02

BUT you are missing the fundamental points. Pilots are flying beyond their experience, They are running out of fuel,They are flying in icing conditions, they are flying over inhospitable terrain, flying in IMC. Their mindset is wrong !!!!!

Yeah, those Cessna and Piper and Bonanza pilots who crashed in the past 9 months sure don't have the correct mindset, eh? The NTSB database has 141 fatal accidents in general aviation in the past 9 months. We know that 2 of them were Cirrus airplanes. And there were 5 Cirrus parachute saves in the same time.

Let's see, Cirrus has 5400 aircraft in a US fleet size of about 200,000 aircraft, so 1/30. But only 2 of 141 fatal accidents are Cirrus or 1/70. (And yet, here we are debating the merits of a safety feature. Pretty absurd, eh?)

Those 5 parachute events: loss of oil pressure (maintenance failure), loss of oil quantity (TBD), fuel exhaustion (short interval from warning to stoppage), flap mechanism failure (TBD), and today's incident (TBD).

Cheers
Rick

belowradar

6th Jun 2013, 21:03

Look at the fact that this aircraft was in the vicinity of an airport

Lets just remind some UK pilots of the following

(3) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions

(a) Landing and taking off

(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.

(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.

Lets get the rules straight if we are going to quote them

And yes pilots should not take on extra risk just because of the chute but I train lots of UK Cirrus pilots and from my experience the vast majority are sensible conscientious and safety minded. They are all aware of what could happen and spend considerable amounts of time and money training to ensure that they are sharp with IFR flying skills and practice PFL and CAPS deployments.

Agaricus bisporus

6th Jun 2013, 21:07

whether the Staverton accident was handled correctly ("the engine was clearly running so he shouldn't have pulled the chute")

No. Wrong way round. The chute was deployed so the engine clearly shouldn't have been running. That doesn't leave much leeway for suggesting the event was handled correctly, no mater how much parallax you apply.

Why, in such a complex aircraft, isn't there at least an auto engine shutdown function when the chute deploys? Does it squawk emergency or deploy a locator beacon automatically?

belowradar, post no 7 says it was reported 2.5 miles from Staverton so UK pilots don't need reminding that's even outside the ATZ so hardly "in the vicinity of the airfield". An exception to that might be if on an instrument approach - but was this incident on the extended centreline? I don't think we know that yet.

mad_jock

6th Jun 2013, 21:15

Let's see, Cirrus has 5400 aircraft in a US fleet size of about 200,000 aircraft

if you can give us the statistic for similar aged aircraft it might be of use.

Also flying the same type of flight profile.

So if you could get rid of all the aero crashes.
Get rid of all the experimental crashes etc

And just have the sub 10 year old airframe touring crashes we might have something useful to look at.

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 21:49

EDMJ,

I quoted the rules for flight over congested areas in UK. I'm not arguing about any pilot's decision to deploy a BRS 'chute (and not this pilot's decision), only the legal considerations to be made when flying over a congested area - or when not to do so, for engine failure considerations.

I used to fly single engined military jets, ejection seat equipped, and later instructed on SEP, wearing a parachute, so I do have some relevant experience.

Irrespective of the safety of occupants of the aircraft (they take the risk knowingly, in the eyes of the law), the rules also take into consideration the requirement to protect the safety of people and property on the ground below.

These days I am often required to operate at relatively low altitudes over congested areas, probably far more than most pilots here. I am legally allowed to do so because I fly a twin engined helicopter and operate on ATC mandated routes under SVFR. Sometimes these routings involve a waiver of the 1,000 foot rule. However, I would not be allowed to do the same if I flew a single engined aircraft of any type, either fixed or rotary wing. They are the aviation rules of the land, not my personal interpretation. If I flew a single, I would have to fly round the congested area on a very different route.

Pittsextra

6th Jun 2013, 21:51

Ah, the joys of ad hominen attacks. So much easier when you don't have a clue about what has really happened with Cirrus accident history.

If a Cirrus pilot uses the parachute, then they must be "gash pilots" (a term that doesn't translate very well to California!).

If a Cirrus pilot dies when not using the parachute, then they must have lacked good airmanship.

Cheers
Rick

Will be interesting to see what the reason is for this but the last time a report on a Cirrus that came down under its parachute this was reported:-

"The engineering investigation identified no abnormalities in the aircraft or its systems. An intermittent or occasional malfunction of the autopilot could not be ruled out, although all tests indicated that the autopilot and associated systems functioned normally."

Ironically not that far away from this accident, regardless it does seem that the ability to simply pull a parachute perhaps shows a general lack of mental capacity which won't serve pilots of this type very well long term.

At some point that parachute won't deploy - or at least not correctly - then what do you do?? I suspect the answer is the family sue Cirrus.....

stevelup

6th Jun 2013, 21:54

According to posts on Flyer, chap had an FAA IR and was cleared for an RNAV approach to 27. No mechanical failure reported.

I guess we really will have to wait for the AAIB report on this one!

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 22:12

From the BBC report, the emergency services were called at 1045 BST.

METARS:

METAR EGBJ 061020Z 04008KT 360V060 8000 FEW009 SCT008 BKN015
11/08 Q1023=

METAR EGBJ 060950Z 04008KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=

METAR EGBJ 060920Z 03007KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=

Also, the aircraft came down approx. 2.2 nm from the threshold of runway 27 and just downwind of the centreline. If properly established on the GNSS instrument approach for R27, it should have been at just under 900 feet QNH (approx 800 feet aal) at that point.

Agaricus bisporus

6th Jun 2013, 22:18

Langdale Rd, Cheltenham. Take a look on Google Earth.
It is damn near a mile south of the centreline of 27 and 2.5 miles out which is a strange place for an aircraft on an RNAV approach to be. With weather as above it looks very much like partial IMC at 1000ft too which makes that position seem even stranger to me. Stranger yet, why an approach to 27 with a NW wind of 7-8Kts? Lots of oddities here!

In response to ST's response below it couldn't drift anywhere like that distance from c/l at 1000ft. Maybe 150yds south by my rough calculations.

It also appears to be within a few tens of yards of huge school playing fields which would be unlikely to be in use at 1045 and not much more than half a mile from extensive agricultural land, much of which appears to be pasture.

ShyTorque

6th Jun 2013, 22:30

Having said that, the aircraft on its 'chute would have drifted downwind from the point of initial deployment. If it was established on the centreline as expected, at the correct altitude, it seems that the aircraft may have been breaking cloud when something drastic occurred.

Fuji Abound

6th Jun 2013, 22:47

Such fun these threads which normally run to form, pilot doesnt know what he is doing, shouldnt be flying a cirrus, far to complex, obviously caught out by the weather, shouldnt have been that low, yet another excuse to pull .. .. ..

Then someone mentions the pilot may have been flying an instrument approach and has an ir .. .. ..

Who knows there are good pilots with and without ir's and there are good pilots who make mistakes, speculation and debate is valuable, but it does occur to me that these threads attract an alarming amount of biggoted opinion from pilots who should know better.

With apologies but that is how i feel.

A and C

6th Jun 2013, 22:53

I don't think this one will be glued back together, a bit of a pity another few feet away from that fence and tree and the story could have been so different !

cirrus G2 driver

6th Jun 2013, 22:59

I read all the chit chat with maybe different thoughts as owning and flying a cirrus for 10yrs now.

Number 1 yes the guy did the right thing by pulling the chute, thats what is there for, it saved his life and may be others on the ground.. you can all debate what he should and should not have done over a built up area, but bottom line today thats what he decided to do, we can all be arm chair pilots but unless any of us where in the place at the time we would all use something if it is there to save our skins.

My reason for buying a cirrus was for a chute it could one day save lives.

The comment that cirrus pilots are less safe becasue they have a chute what stuppid comment that was..

There seems to be more AAIB investegators on here than anything.. to much speculation to what might have been if he had done this, if he was not so old etc etc,,

Give the guy a break he is a pilot like some of us and faced with what ever happened to him today he got it so right..

A plane falls out of sky at 1000ft plus and the pilot walks away, well who would have thought that some years back..

Disconect all them airbags in your cars and run for the hills, do they make you a less of a driver because you know you will be alright if you have a crash..

sdbeach

6th Jun 2013, 23:20

Will be interesting to see what the reason is for this but the last time a report on a Cirrus that came down under its parachute this was reported:-

"The engineering investigation identified no abnormalities in the aircraft or its systems. An intermittent or occasional malfunction of the autopilot could not be ruled out, although all tests indicated that the autopilot and associated systems functioned normally."
Let there be no mistake, the Cirrus community contains a wide range of talented pilots. Some experience pilots who make mistakes. Some inexperienced pilots who get into situations way beyond their capabilities.

The CAPS pull at Horton, Gloucestershire, UK was in an SRV model. That means it is not capable nor authorized for IFR flight in IMC. Yet, the pilot was flying at or just below the cloud bases when he admitted disorientation and/or vertigo.

For Cirrus pilots, a mistake or lack of skill or experience or planning does not need to mean a death sentence. It should and does mean that most Cirrus pilots seek greater skill and experience and planning to avoid getting into those situations. Attendance at the COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) has increased this year by about 15-20 percent. And we just held our inaugural CPPP in Brazil, along with the ones in US, Europe and Australia.

Ironically not that far away from this accident, regardless it does seem that the ability to simply pull a parachute perhaps shows a general lack of mental capacity which won't serve pilots of this type very well long term.

Sorry, but I didn't see that in the human factors section of any Cirrus accident report. Can you show me where to look?

At some point that parachute won't deploy - or at least not correctly - then what do you do?? I suspect the answer is the family sue Cirrus.....Has happened. Has been investigated to understand how to fix things. Nothing involving humans or technology seems to be 100% reliable. Plan ahead.

Before Peter asks
I don't think this one will be glued back together, a bit of a pity another few feet away from that fence and tree and the story could have been so different
Actually, it might fly again. The wing can be replaced for about $150,000 USD. If that's the major source of damage, then fixing a relatively new SR22 with a hull value of $300,000 to $700,000 might make economic sense to an insurance company or repair station buying the salvage rights.

At least 8 Cirrus airplanes have been repaired and flown again after a parachute pull. One of those was N470RD mentioned earlier in the chute pull at Horton, Gloucestershire.

Anyone have better photographs of the damage? See any other areas of broken parts?

Cheers
Rick

P1DRIVER

7th Jun 2013, 03:33

Rick,

Your telling us that someone pulled the handle for "flap mechanism failure"

Unbelievable .????? You don,t need flaps to land surely ?

(Unless only one flap came down,Then he / she should have put it back up!, and the a/c entered a spin?? )

Once again " fuel exhaustion". No excuses. Flying until the fuel gets that low is very, very bad airmanship.

And yes I agree it is also happening with other a/c types.

I don,t really care about all the figures your firing at us to make this safety device look good!! These accidents are making your pilots look bad. (In my eyes)

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 04:06

Who knows there are good pilots with and without ir's and there are good pilots who make mistakes, speculation and debate is valuable, but it does occur to me that these threads attract an alarming amount of biggoted opinion from pilots who should know better.

fuji

We have had these discussions before but here goes !!!

the Cirrus is unique in being an aircraft which flies against convention in offering a manufacturer standard fit BRS!
Accidents where the chute is used will attract discussion by pilots.

The use of the chute will often run against conventional training to recover from situations which are not open to aircraft not fitted with a BRS.

I wish other manufacturers would follow suit as such a recovery option does save lives.
When and how it is used will naturally generate discussion!

in this situation the Pilot did the right thing as he and others on the ground got away with it!

had there been a baby or child in the garden then the headlines would be very different.

There is another thread running on crosswind landings" Time and time again pilots refer to flying to the manufacturers POH.
cirrus do not recommend the use of the Chute in the event of a power loss!
They recommend conventional gliding to a clear area and forcelanding.
Only if such an area does not exist do they recommend CONSIDERING the use of the BRS.

It is other NON Cirrus organisations who promote the idea of pulling the chute for literally any event and I totslly disagree with that stance.

Once that chute is pulled the occupants become passengers to a crash and people on the ground are put at risk.

I have often flown aircraft when the winds near the surface have been 30 mph and have flown singles where the winds have been 60 mph.
Would I be best forcelanding with very slow groundspeed into 30 or 60 mph winds or slamming into a brick wall at 30mph or 60 mph under a Cirrus chute?
We all know the results to a car hitting a brick wall at 30 or 60 mph!
While an aircraft is flying or gliding you have directional control.
Under the chute you have no directional control,

Too many Cirrus accidents are happening to pilots who are flying out of their ability range and in conditions that they are not up to!
I am not comfortable flying a conventional single at night! i would be far more comfortable flying a Cirrus at night! That follows that I would fly more at night and hence expose myself more to the chance of having to use the chute at night.
The same appears to be the case with pilots pushing on into conditions they are not up to flying because in the back of their minds they have a get out of jail for free card in the form of the BRS.

Yes more and more of the chute pulls appear to be pilots getting into a mess out of their skill abiliities because the BRS gives them a false comfort zone.

We have a responsibility not just to saving our own bacon but to those on the ground and when or when not to pull the chute needs far more discussion. If you have an engine failure over a built up area and have the altitude to glide clear it is totally irresponsible and cowardly to risk people on the ground by pulling the chute.

If you are too low or some other problem occurs then you have no choice but to pull and as in this case hope all turns out fine for you and others below.

The Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft with a lot of new safety options what is in discussion is when and when not to use it and whether it is luring pilots into flying in conditions where they or the aircraft are not capable of dealing with.

If that is biggoted by pilots who should know better ???:ugh: Maybe it is concerns being raised by pilots who probably do know better

Pace

A and C

7th Jun 2013, 05:45

In my view the damage to this aircraft is such that it is unlikely to be economically recoverable. N470RD landed in a field and did not hit anything on the way down, there was a little wing tip damage but apart from that the wing was undamaged, the major work involved damage to the fuselage in the area of the rear spar mounting.

From what I have seen in the photo of this aircraft the wing is a write off and shock of this wing detachment it likely to have so damaged the fuselage centre section that it is not economic to repair, add to that an engine shock load check and a new prop ( undamaged on N470RD) and I doubt if the numbers stack up in faviour of a repair.

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 07:01

Once again " fuel exhaustion". No excuses. Flying until the fuel gets that low is very, very bad airmanship.

And yes I agree it is also happening with other a/c types.

You are absolutely right! So once we agree that pilots regularly commit all kinds of very, very bad airmanship and that this is THE overwhelming cause of accidents in general aviation (just look at the reports), please now make the next step in your thinking: Do pilots deserve to die for commiting bad airmanship? Or is it a good idea to offer them an out? A way to make one last, but really good decision: to pull?

These accidents are making your pilots look bad. (In my eyes)

These accidents are making them look alive. Would you really prefer to discuss another "tragic" accident where the pilot did the exact same thing, as regularly happens in other aircraft types AND in the Cirrus?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

And to those in this thread who say "well, he should have just flown better" or something to that effect: Have a look at the statistics. The vast majority of accidents is caused by pilots doing stupid things. The thinking of "well, I'd never be that stupid because I am a really good pilot" has been clearly identified by accident investigators as a dangerous attitude. Pride cometh before the fall and all that.

Once that chute is pulled the occupants become passengers to a crash and people on the ground are put at risk.

You mean, unlike the case of the Lancair and the jogger on the beach, where the pilot had so much control? There's a ton of cases like that. I know of NO case where an aircraft coming down under a chute has caused injury to people on the ground. I know of several cases where people have been injured by aircraft landing "conventionally". Your point is a nice theory. It doesn't hold water. Conventional emergency landings are more dangerous to the people inside the aircraft AND on the ground. By a huge margin.

Too many Cirrus accidents are happening to pilots who are flying out of their ability range and in conditions that they are not up to!
...
Yes more and more of the chute pulls appear to be pilots getting into a mess out of their skill abiliities because the BRS gives them a false comfort zone.

Care to substantiate those statements with actual numbers and facts? The cases are out there. Tell us how you arrive at "too many" and "more and more".

Hendy

7th Jun 2013, 07:20

huge school playing fields which would be unlikely to be in use at 1045

There are 4 schools on that site. The playing fields are in continuous use. My own son attends one of those schools and early morning rugby has featured in his timetable - although I think it's athletics at the moment.

I'm surprised more has not been made in the press of the low pass near the schools while not in control of the aircraft. The school's mobile phone policy is obviously effective otherwise there could have been a lot more footage. A lot of them saw the parachute and they all heard the bang.

stickandrudderman

7th Jun 2013, 07:31

A good pilot is one who is relaxed in his aircraft, even when the workload gets high.
It could be argued that a pilot who pulls the chute is most definitely not relaxed and that the situation that is causing his discomfort is one that he might easily have found himself in if flying an aircraft that wasn't equipped with BRS.
The two scenarios offer very different outcomes and I know which one I prefer.
Any pilot who says that he has never and will never find himself in an airborne situation where his comfort levels are exceeded has probably driven every model of F1 car ever made, flown every aircraft type ever made, sailed every boat ever made and fathered children by both Natalie Imbruglia and Angelina Jolie after having quaffed seven bottles of 57 Dom Perignon in one dinner at Buckingham Palace.
(A fantasist).

EDMJ

7th Jun 2013, 07:32

... the low pass near the schools while not in control of the aircraft...

Care to elaborate on that? All previous reports merely seem to state the aircraft was on approach to Staverton, something happened and the chute was pulled.

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 07:37

ThBouchert

I have read a number of the accident reports over time and an awful lot are pilots flying in conditions they are not capable of handlling !
No body wants anyone to die and the BRS is a major advance in offering a way out!
Your argument that no one has been killed on the ground to date by a descending aircraft under a chute is pathetic!
In this very crash bad that house had young children playing in the garden we would have never hear the end of it! It will
Happen!
I do not see any who are against the use of the chute the argument is more about when and where to use it and when not
Also I strongly believe that having the chute is encouraging some pilots into situations where they need to use it as stated I would not fly a single at night any distance but I would in a Cirrus

Pace

belowradar

7th Jun 2013, 07:37

Any pilot who above a city and looses the engine while being capable of gliding clear is a selfish Basta+d Yellow bellied and incompetent

Very MACHO and emotive opinion

And for the guy who thinks 2.5 miles is not in the vicinity we now hear that IR rated and flying RNAV approach to airport

Get rid of the nonsense opinion and start looking at the facts

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 07:46

EDMJ

In a zero wind day the aircraft under a chute will descend vertically!
On windy days it will descend vertically and travel horizontally enroute to its uncontrolled touchdown point as would a descending balloon!
So it would travel over the tops of various ground features before the eventual crash

Pace

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 07:48

In this very crash bad that house had young children playing in the garden we would have never hear the end of it!But they didn't. Noone was hurt. You can make up disaster scenarios all you want. To what end? Recreational flying is "unnecessary" and always has a risk attached. So are you suggesting to prohibit it? Because that's the only consequence that really makes sense to your line of argument. Are you suggesting that YOU decide what an acceptable risk is (your kind of flying, but not that of others)? Life is not free of risk. And you are moving down a very slippery slope.

Also I strongly believe that having the chute is encouraging some pilots into situations where they need to use it"Some" is quite different from "too many" and "more and more", wouldn't you say?

Two observation:

-Yes, some people will do stupid things. No amount of parachutes will change that.
- Yes, of course the chute changes the risk evaluation of flying. Like having two engines. Better power. Shorter take-off and landing distances. And all those other properties of the aircraft you fly. The question is: Does the chute prompt more people to exceed their comfort zone in ways they wouldn't if the didn't have it? The record so far does not at all support that assumption.

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 08:04

Thbourchert

Now listen carefully I will not say it again ; ) The Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft ( wish I had one ) the BRS is a major advancement in safety which has saved many lives ! With all things come positives and negatives as is the case with flying twins! Twins can add safety especially with enroute problems but have their negatives too!
There are some who peddle the idea of pulling the shoot for literally any threatening situation and there are those of us who can see problems in doing so in some situations!
Regarding false security read up the accident reports and some make you feel ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots

Pace

Pittsextra

7th Jun 2013, 08:10

Pace that sums it up well.

The parachute isn't new! Plenty of people are flying Extra's (for example) with a personal parachute but it doesn't necessarily mean you have a number of pilots bailing out.

Hendy

7th Jun 2013, 08:18

Care to elaborate on that? All previous reports merely seem to state the aircraft was on approach to Staverton, something happened and the chute was pulled. I understand from reading this thread that once the chute is deployed the pilot is no longer in control. Perhaps I should have used an alternative word to 'pass' - 'drift' maybe.

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 08:26

And now you listen carefully ;-)

There are some who peddle the idea of pulling the shoot for literally any threatening situation and there are those of us who can see problems in doing so in some situations! Nobody has painted a picture as black and white as you make it. Here are the facts: Nobody (in the aircraft nor on the ground) has ever died when the chute was pulled within parameters. Those "negatives" that come with a chute simply have not happened. In all probability, a "yet" must be added to that sentence. But so far - nothing. OTOH, when you look at fatal Cirrus accidents, about half of them seem to have had a good chance to end without fatalities had the chute been pulled.

What's the conclusion to draw from that? What advice do you give people? Do you save lives by urging people to pull more often? Or do you make up fantasy scenarios of what could happen if something might happen and frighten people into not pulling? Quite a responsibility you assume when talking about pulling or not...

Regarding false security read up the accident reports and some make you feel ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots I have read every one of those reports. And many more. Fact is, pilots don't do more or differently stupid things in a Cirrus than in other aircraft.

Also, what makes you feel ashamed makes me humble. I don't consider myself to be a superior or in any way special pilot. If it can happen to them, it might just happen to me. In fact, the question of "how could someone arrive at doing something that seems so obviously stupid in hindsight?" is the one question that bothers me the most with regard to my personal safety when flying. I suggest that's a more useful approach than "feeling ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots" if you intend to increase your own safety in flying.

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 08:51

ThBourchert

Ashamed was strong so apologize for that! There was a recent report which made me think what a total idiot!
A guy elected to fly his girlfriend and was flying on top expecting the cloudbase at his destination to be at 2000 feet.
This pilot was supposed to be instrument rated.
On his arrival the cloudbase was far from being 2000 feet and he was offered the ILS which he hesitantly elected to take.
he was out of limits on the ILS and was told to go around and fly the missed approach procedure.
His missed approach was awful and he was given a heading to fly back to the beacon.
In the turn back he lost control and thankfully instantly pulled the chute.
What the heck was he doing there in the first place?
Yes we all make mistakes and yes we can all get into tricky situations but this was an accident waiting to happen.
How much did the BRS comfort zone contribute to him undertaking a trip in conditions he was not capable of flying?

I am sure someone will post a link to the actual report

Pace

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 09:08

There was a recent report which made me think what a total idiot!
A guy elected to fly his girlfriend and was flying on top expecting the cloudbase at his destination to be at 2000 feet

....

I am sure someone will post a link to the actual report

Actually, the report isn't out yet AFAIK, so much of what you describe is, no offense, conjecture. But still, GREAT example! I could not disagree more with your conclusions.

The fact is: recreational pilots are almost always "out of practice". It goes with the territory. This case is an absolutely classic scenario. The man messed up the approach. If you want to ban people who do that from flying, there'd be no pilots. Not a one. To pretend that the way to reduce GA accident rates is to only allow perfect or "real" pilots to fly is beyond ridiculous. People make mistakes. From lowly GA flying to Airbii (and I already hear you say: only the French...) and the military. The way to deal with it is NOT to ask for zero mistakes, because it won't happen.

In any aircraft but the Cirrus, the penalty for messing up the approach would have been death. Not only of the pilot, but also of the passenger. I fail to see again and again how there's any problem with these two people still being among us.

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 09:40

TH

There is no room for anyone who is not up to scratch or on top of the game in the IFR and IMC world.
This does not stop them flying VFR/VMC but IFR serious IMC is not a playground.
If it is then they become a danger to themselves a danger to their PAX and a danger to other aircraft in that airspace.

Yes we all make mistakes but the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake a promptly and correctly rectifies it not one who makes one mistake which leads to another then another then a crash.

Pace

Agaricus bisporus

7th Jun 2013, 09:51

Does the chute prompt more people to exceed their comfort zone in ways they wouldn't if the didn't have it?

It would be interesting to get a psychologist's opinion on that.

I don't think there would be any doubt about the answer. It's just human nature.

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 09:52

Somehow I don't seem to get through. A last try, since we're repeating ourselves:

Yes we all make mistakes but the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake a promptly and correctly rectifies it not one who makes one mistake which leads to another then another then a crash.Sounds great. Would make a nice poster. But it's just not anywhere near reality. In real life (tm), something like well over 80 percent of aircraft accidents are caused by pilots doing "blatantly dumb stuff". That goes for highly trained airline pilots, that goes for military "jocks", that goes for lowly GA pilots (the rates might differ somewhat). Insisting that everybody who crashes is an idiot and everybody who doesn't (hasn't yet, rather) is a "good pilot" doesn't help. Everybody is a "good pilot" per your definition - until they aren't.

The solution you seem to hint at is making access to flying harder (than it is already). Sort private pilots out, as with the airlines and the military. Maybe by a committee led by, hmm, Pace and mad_jock. Then, only the "good" pilots would be left to fly. Sounds like just what our society and our avocation need, right?

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 09:54

Thomas: Good analysis.

In particular, making mistakes is very common and is spread right across the spectrum of GA pilots and aircraft.

Here is a link to a thread on Flyer:

FLYER Forums ? View topic - Light Aircraft Missing in Scotland (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42818&hilit=Lake+District+crash)

Here is a quote from it:

"The conditions, with a lot of snow, and visibility were very bad.

He said the pilot, whose identity has not been released, would have faced "tricky" decisions about whether to fly above or below the snowstorm over the mountainous terrain.

"In those conditions, he must have had to take a decision whether to go above or below it. It's not easy in a light aircraft, given the terrain below.

"He is being treated as missing, but as time goes by we begin to fear the worst."

Yes the pilot made mistakes. No he probably shouldn't have been there. Some of those posting here might well describe him in colourful language.

And, by the way, he wasn't flying a Cirrus, so he can't be accused of using a chute as an excuse to stretch his mission profile. He just got it wrong.

But should the penalty for making those mistakes be death? You don't even get that for murder any more.

All that said, if he had had a BRS, he would have had an alternative that would clearly have been preferable to what happened.

It's by no means an isolated example.

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 10:00

Jonzarno

Wrong accident! The one I am talking about was linked in the other long thread on the BRS that ran before. I will have to find it later tonight.

Pace

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 10:16

Pace

Sorry, I wasn't trying to identify any accident you referred to, I just did a search for an accident to look at and this one was the first that came up.

As I said: there are lots of others...........

Pace

7th Jun 2013, 10:56

That's ok ; ) I am
Not hitting the Cirrus or the BRS as its my dream machine! Saw a new report on the London Underground paper with a good picture!
The police are saying how lucky the crash was as many on the ground could have been killed or seriously injured if the aircraft had not come down where it did!
This is what we are up against! I feel all the points I have made are valid including the aircraft enticing pilots to fly in conditions they are not current to fly in or up to the job of doing so
Yes there will be times where pulling over a built up area but there are also times where the pilot should glide clear even if that increases risk to himself!
Those who use the excuse that no one has been killed under a chuted Cirrus are Naive it will only take one bad location crash under the chute and we are all in serious problems!
Pilots must keep up their handling skills and fly within the limits they would set themselves in conventional aircraft!
The aircraft and its systems should not be used to replace or safeguard against lack of those skills

Pace

dublinpilot

7th Jun 2013, 11:18

The aircraft and its systems should not be used to replace or safeguard against lack of those skills

While I agree with that, I think the focus on the parachute is wrong.

I find it hard to believe that knowing I've a parachure available would make me more inclined to take off into bad weather as I know that pulling it will be very expensive and embarrassing. Great if needed, but not a situation that I'd want to find myself in.

However I can easily envisionage how having a full autopilot and an advanced avionics suite would provide that temptation. I could envisionage it to be a lot easier to convince myself that the autopilot can do the IMC stuff that I'm not capable of and I just have to 'monitor the systems'.

Obviously not a good think to do, but a lot easier to imagine than the idea that a parachute would provide the temptation.

Of course advanced autopilots and avionics are fitted to many aircraft, so it doesn't help the Cirrus haters ;)

dp

mad_jock

7th Jun 2013, 11:45

its nothing to do with hating the aircraft and we don't actually have much problem with having the chute either. its a bit like air-bags in cars.

Johnm

7th Jun 2013, 11:47

As someone who has flown an Archer and a Trinidad, autopilot coupled or manually, on that 27 RNAV approach in all sorts of weather I sit here mystified. The AAIB report will be eagerly awaited.

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 12:18

DP

You're right about the autopilot and avionics being a temptation to under qualified pilots.

There are plenty of examples, but perhaps the best known is the death of JFK junior and his two passengers.

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 12:24

However I can easily envisionage how having a full autopilot and an advanced avionics suite would provide that temptation. I could envisionage it to be a lot easier to convince myself that the autopilot can do the IMC stuff that I'm not capable of and I just have to 'monitor the systems'.

Commercial air traffic has an excellent safety record, no doubt in part to the level of automation involved, but when things start to go wrong with the technology it can be hard for the pilots to realise what is happening and utilise traditional piloting skills to recover.

One difference with the later models of Cirrus is that is an all electric (avionics wise) aircraft. There are no standby suction gyros. There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments. I have had this happen once (on the ground) and it required a complete restart of the avionics to return to normal. I have also had the autopilot fly straight through the localiser on a coupled approach and on one occasion turn outbound (rather than inbound) on intercept, although the latter was not in a Cirrus. No persistent faults were detected in any of these cases.

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 13:04

There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments.

You could. Then your gaze would move down to the analog backup instruments (I hope).

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 13:39

Quote:

There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments.

You could. Then your gaze would move down to the analog backup instruments (I hope).

The backup horizon is electric as well. Hopefully that's not winding down. If you have an STEC autopilot that's driven by a (hidden) electric turn coordinator. If you have the Avidyne autopilot or Garmin system I believe that's driven off the solid state gyros as the main displays (which have just failed). In real IMC the chute could become an attractive option really quickly.

To me the chute sort of mitigates the risk of relying on the technology, rather than making me want to push my luck in marginal weather.

englishal

7th Jun 2013, 13:46

I have also had the autopilot fly straight through the localiser on a coupled approach and on one occasion turn outbound (rather than inbound) on intercept, although the latter was not in a Cirrus.
Was this pilot error by any chance as this sounds like the AP was flying a back course, and it could easily be that BC was selected.

Perhaps technology had nothing to do with this accident, perhaps it was a simple pilot error, pilot disorientation, or pilot incapacitation which cased the pilot to pull the red handle. ....

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 14:17

The backup horizon is electric as well. Hopefully that's not winding down.Since you say you fly a Cirrus, may I STRONGLY suggest you read up on the electric system design and failure modes? If you have, you'll know that there is no hope involved in the backup horizon NOT winding down (nor the S-TEC TC). It won't - unless you encounter truly unlikely multiple failures, in which case, yes, you do have the chute instead of a death sentence. No airplane (or anything or anyone) is completely failsafe - except Chuck Norris and mad_jock :}

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 14:35

Since you say you fly a Cirrus, may I STRONGLY suggest you read up on the electric system design and failure modes?

I used to fly a Cirrus. I did read all the manuals. There is a lot of redundancy in the electrical system, it is very complicated, far too much to commit to memory. The system can generate a myriad of error messages - mainly trivial, other signifying it's imminent demise (or at least when the batteries run out). Don't get me wrong I think the Cirrus is a great going places aeroplane and the BRS is great - but why not have some non electric standby gyros?

mad_jock

7th Jun 2013, 14:36

I think pace would sort himself out as well and a few others on here.

And never had a complete instrument failure yet on the old steam instruments but had quite a few black screens on EFIS and just had a 1.5" AH and a 1" ASI to fly on until we had sorted it out.

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 14:41

he system can generate a myriad of error messages - mainly trivial, other signifying it's imminent demise (or at least when the batteries run out).

Nope. Fundamental misunderstanding of the system. It will never run on batteries alone since it has dual alternators (a dual failure is extremely unlikely). Any one of those will power the essential bus indefinitely. The backup gyro is on that bus. Should you run on batteries alone, you still have ample time to land with the gyros spinning.

Why not have a vacuum system? Are you kidding?

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 14:45

Was this pilot error by any chance as this sounds like the AP was flying a back course, and it could easily be that BC was selected.

It probably was - I never managed to reproduce it. I have been known to make errors, have "finger trouble" or have the odd "senior moment", unlike some of the sky gods who frequent this forum :). IIRC though this was a simple STEC arrangement, without a back course facility.

Perhaps technology had nothing to do with this accident, perhaps it was a simple pilot error, pilot disorientation, or pilot incapacitation which cased the pilot to pull the red handle. ....

In any case the BRS did the job it was supposed to do. Things could have been a lot worse. Personally I have always thought, if I did ever have to pull the handle, I would rather be alive, arguing with people on this forum about whether I should have pulled the handle or not, than dead.

Nope. Fundamental misunderstanding of the system.

I do understand the system.

I also understand that never and extremely unlikely are not the same.:O

thborchert

7th Jun 2013, 15:21

I do understand the system.

Here's why I was getting excited about it: A guy and passengers died in Zurich because he didn't fully understand the system and believed that, after alternator 1 failed, at some point everything would go dark in his Cirrus. Sad.

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 15:42

Here's why I was getting excited about it: A guy and passengers died in Zurich because he didn't fully understand the system and believed that, after alternator 1 failed, at some point everything would go dark in his Cirrus. Sad.

That is sad.

I had to do an 8 hour conversion course but I think more ground school would have been useful. I made sure I read all the documentation available - there is a lot.

I would have thought running through the checklists would have made the duplication in the electrical system obvious.

Pittsextra

7th Jun 2013, 16:05

...and that's the problem. Last 3 Cirrus AAIB reported accidents have one chute pull and no subsequent issue found and the other 2 are low time piloting errors (low time you can read for the Cirrus).

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 16:22

Baldwinm

Your ILS/autopilot problem MAY have been caused by intercepting the localiser to close to the FAF for example if being vectored.

I have had it happen to me (I have Avidyne Entegra avionics but a DFC90 not an Stec autopilot) and what happens is that, if you are vectored to close, the CDI doesn't auto slew and thus points you across the localiser. If you are flying with the AP coupled, it will fly you through the localiser on the heading that is set.

It's easily fixed by manually setting the CDI to the inbound course, but the first time it happens it can take a moment or two to spot unless you include a check of the CDI in your approach checklist.

I obviously can't say for sure if this is what happened to you but it is a possibility.

P1DRIVER

7th Jun 2013, 17:01

Guys, Why are you trying to focus and /or move the attention away from the underlying fundamental problems. Instruments failing this, instruments failing that. Icing up pitot tubes etc etc. If the instruments fail. Whats wrong with looking outside - oh sorry forgot you are somewhere where you shouldn,t be.

THEY ARE FLYING (mostly) In CONDITIONS /PLACES where they should not be - not recent in IMC/ No IR / IMC rating with no recent practice / ICING conditions. Oh and not to mention getting into SPINS ? How do you get into a Spin - oh right flying IMC VFR, no recency or possibly IR/IMC rating. i can do that I've got a safety card.

Sounds like Jo average does not know the basics and how to get out of MINOR problems because the minor problems very quickly build into major problems. Eg. flap malfuntions. SH@t. I can,t land without flaps. Lets PULL.
Eg. Fuel cap left off. WTF. Let it run out of fuel. Lets PULL.

I am NOT getting at the Cirrus or the parachute as many have said previously
Yes it does safe lives - but really ????? Pilots Please think and evaluate.

baldwinm

7th Jun 2013, 17:52

Jonzarno,

May have been. Definitely was vectors. Can't remember whether it was an STEC or avidyne autoplilot as was in a group with both. Did the same thing a few days earlier and it worked fine, but could have been vectored in tighter, I suppose. Got vectors for another go, same thing happened so did an SRA. I normallly align things as you suggest but perhaps i didnt this time

P1DRIVER - i didnt just look out of the window because i was in IMC. if I wasnt I wouldnt have been doing an ILS. Also I believe the accident referred to in ths thread occurred during an instrument approach and the pilot was instrument rated so the discussion relating to instrument failures is relevant.

P1DRIVER

7th Jun 2013, 18:31

So you have a instrument failure. Single or might be more.
You pull the safety handle and jepardise people and property on the ground?

I think I would gain some safe height and ask for help from ATC.

I must have the wrong mindset? Perhaps someone will tell me i need to buy and fly a Cirrus

Carry on and keep safe

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 18:56

P1Driver

If you are talking about the accident in this thread, we don't know what actually happened yet and, with respect, I think your comment is premature and unfair on the accident pilot (who may even be reading this thread) until we do know just what did happen.

If you are talking in general about how to deal with the scenario you describe, and which may or may not be what happened here, I agree with you as would any other pilot whether a Cirrus driver or not.

P1DRIVER

7th Jun 2013, 19:13

J

I hope he is reading this and I hope thousands, no tens of thousands of other pilots are reading this. You might, just might start thinking about flying safely and within limits.

I might be premature ! But other than "control failure" please tell me Why he should have pulled the get out of a bad situation handle and leave it to the wind to take him to his crash site.

No I ,m trying not to attack the pilot but the cap might fit, might not.

bluedonk

7th Jun 2013, 19:32

My first and probably last post. In the last year I have lost two friends. Both were highly experienced talented pilots. Both killed in accidents, where, if they had a balistic parachute they might have survived. I do not know had it been available, if they would have used it. In both cases they were within the parameters for deployment.
Might I suggest an aircraft floating gently down with a large orange parachute is less risk than an out of control high energy aircraft smashing into the ground. After engine failure trying to stretch a glide or turn tightly to get back is a very good way to lose control. I am not a super pilot and I have met very few, I have lost a number of friends who were much better than I. A number of years ago one of the best I had seen, tried the impossible turn after engine failure. He was a lovely man and his family was devastated with his loss.
I soloed 38years ago, I have instructed and I fly for a living. I want the option, I would not want my last thought to be I wish I had a ballistic chute.
I also suspect some of these arguments surfaced in the first world war concerning giving parachutes to RFC pilots. I wonder how many died because they did not have the option.
Whatever happened here this gentleman walked away. That surely has to be the most important thing.

Kolossi

7th Jun 2013, 19:41

OK so hands up, I'm just a 70 hour PPL newbie. This post also isn't about the accident which is the subject of this thread as I don't know what happened, and I am certainly not going to judge it, but it is about the debate about chutes it sparked.

FWIW I tend towards agreement with Pace/Mad Jock/P1Driver with regards to the comment that *IF* there wasn't an overriding reason for it, it would be somewhat selfish to pull the handle rather than at least attempt to fly/glide to a position clear of obstacles below and downwind before pulling.

I also agree that surely with the backup of a chute a pilot will naturally feel a little less reservation about getting themselves into a challenging situation. I've got a SkyDemon unit and whilst I've always taken a paper plog with me on my post-ppl jaunts, can I honestly say that I won't be tempted not to 'cos the box will get me home? I know it's a daft idea, but I can't guarantee I won't be lulled into it some day. Happily I fly mostly around Kent so not difficult to find a coastline to orientate with but is that just another justification for being complacent (WRT plog I mean)?

As I say Mad Jock/Pace I very much am not trying to argue against your positions, but here's my question to you for the sake of debate:

If flying in VMC surely you should have no need for the Artificial Horizon as you should be looking out the window. Is the AH therefore not a similar temptation giving non-IR/IMC pilots some complacency that they'd have a clue what to do if they entered cloud (however misguided). So should we not also to some degree condemn the provision of the AH for non-IR/IMC pilots. And if not, how is that logically different to the position and comments regarding the reservations about pilots flying chuted Cirrii?

Again, only the spirit of friendly, interesting debate ... discuss :)

Jonzarno

7th Jun 2013, 19:47

You might, just might start thinking about flying safely and within limits.

Can I ask the basis for this personal comment on my flying?

I don't recall that we have ever flown together. I'm sure I would have remembered......

mad_jock

7th Jun 2013, 19:53

If it was up to me I would teach PPL without any instruments up to starting NAV.

And yes the AH is an hindrance to some pilots.

Also funny enough break pedals cause a heap of bad habits as well.

You take a pilot who has been trained in an old slab wing PA28 which only has the hand brake or a tail dragger their technique is far better than folk trained on "modern" ;) stuff with differential braking.

Fuji Abound

7th Jun 2013, 20:33

A comment or two.

In the US at any rate the overall fatal accident rate for the Cirrus is significantly better than the rest of the GA fleet. The Cirrus pilot population is doing a far better job than average.

The pilot has little control where the aircraft lands once the chute has been pulled. However the aircraft lands essentially vertically and, in terms of the impact, under control. The energy on impact is reasonably predictable. If you were to run hundreds of random landing scenarios in built up areas I wonder how many would end up on roofs, or in back gardens or running down the side of buildings. In each case the collateral damage would probably been relatively self contained. On the other hand with respect to a conventional forced landing the pilot has a significant degree of control over the landing site. However the landing is not vertical and the energy will be dissipated along the total path required to bring the aircraft to a standstill. Even with a well judged forced landing the imprint will be significantly larger. With an ill judged forced landing the results are more random. The evidence, and my experience, is there are few pilots that can accurately manage a forced landing. The evidence is that in the heat of a real emergency forced landing are often managed a great deal more poorly than in the training scenario. We all dance on the head of a pin, but I wonder if there are some that shouldn't be as quick with their claims that they could consistently and accurately manage a forced landing.

In instrument conditions with low bases there are innumerable accounts of loss of control with spin in and high energy impact; read the accident reports. The results are always fatal and the collateral damage often significant. For some reasons the pictures of a twin that ran out of fuel in the overhead of my local airport always come to mind. The pilot succeeded in removing the roof of a large house and wiped out the entire garden. Thankfully he survived but the damage was memorable. Unfortunately there are much worse accounts.

Which takes me full circle as to whether Cirrus pilots take on missions they shouldn't because of the chute and whether they are flying an aircraft that is beyond their ability. Whether they are, or aren't, there can be little doubt they are doing more with their aircraft than the mass of the GA fleet. Most Cirrus pilots, in fact the vast majority, are owners. They use their aircraft to go places. They travel over distances. By necessity they are far more likely to expose themselves to more challenging flying and more variety of weather. Yet, they perform on average better than the GA fleet as a whole.

Pace on another thread talks about options. I hope I am a reasonably cautious pilot. I hesitate a lot flying a conventional single at night, in IMC with low bases or over water (outside of glide distance of land), I hesitate a lot less in a Cirrus and by a degree less again in a twin. Going to France this week in the Cirrus I would have gone the shortest distance over the channel (perhaps old habits die to hard) but as it was in a twin I happily opted for the longest crossing. So we all make choices and in my opinion the Cirrus offers better choices than a conventional single.

This thread is about debating how those choices are exercised, more than the circumstances of this accident which as yet we know very little. The choices which you or I might make are not the choices him or her over their might make, and the choices we bravely think we might make in the comfort of our sitting room may be very different from the way we actually perform when the chips are down, the engine stops for real for the very first time for when you are least expecting it to quit and the weather somehow doesn't seem as good as the last time you did a PFL with your instructor.

As I departed over the coast this week I thought to myself how wonderful it was to see a blue sky for a change. At 500 feet over the sea there was no horizon, I could just about see the sea glancing down and the only solution was to switch to instruments. The climb continued to FL65 by which time it was just possible to continue reliant on enjoying the view through the screen. With one engine an engine failure at any time would have been challenging, more challenging than I had anticipated moments earlier on the ground. I would have made that flight before I could fly on instruments because the conditions looked fine, but I know with the minimal instrument training I then had it would have required every ounce of my ability to complete that climb or do something else, there wouldn't have been anything left to handle an engine failure or some other emergency. Would I have pulled the chute? The moment the aircraft was ahead of me you bet your life I would! What would you have done? Are you in the comfort of your arm chair writing your post on this thread so confident that you would have handled the emergency differently and the outcome would have been better?

dublinpilot

7th Jun 2013, 20:35

You take a pilot who has been trained in an old slab wing PA28

I've flown three different PA28's. They've all had differential breaking. :confused:

On Track

7th Jun 2013, 21:06

Haha, an aircraft with BREAK pedals. That's a good one.

sdbeach

7th Jun 2013, 21:35

There was a much publicized accident where a pilot flying his Girlfriend IMC thought his destination was going to be 2000 foot cloudbase.

getting there the cloudbase was low and the incompetent pilot elected to try and fly an ILS. Making a bad job of it he was told to go around and fly the missed approach.

The incompetent pilot could not even fly a missed approach and lost control in a turn.

He pulled the chute which saved him and his girlfriend but she refused to fly with him again.
Pace, those details do not match any Cirrus parachute pull that I have studied. Got any more details? Year? Location?

The closest example was a Cirrus pilot flying to Nantucket in 2007. Lots of details in the NTSB investigation report and public information docket if you are interested.

He was a VFR pilot almost ready for his instrument checkride. The forecasted fog came in earlier than expected and he requested the ILS, which he received clearance to fly. Unfortunately, he turned the wrong way away from the airport and instead towards the ocean, became disoriented and pulled the CAPS handle. He and his pregnant wife survived with serious injuries after the parachute snagged on a communications tower and the plane dropped hard onto the ground. The wife delivered a healthy baby. To my knowledge, the pilot is no longer flying.

Was this pilot incompetent? Obviously, by definition, a non-instrument rated pilot has not demonstrated competency to an examiner.

Girlfriend refused to fly with him? Makes for a more entertaining story. Except it was his pregnant wife. Who survived and gave birth to their child.

You see incompetence. I see a family intact after a harrowing situation.

You see flying IMC. I see a stressful situation in which a pilot makes a very bad judgement decision.

We're both right.

Do you agree this story is not unique? VFR-in-IMC situations happen way too often in all makes of GA aircraft.

Cheers
Rick

vee-tail-1

7th Jun 2013, 23:16

sdbeach

8th Jun 2013, 00:26

I am with Pace on this ... indeed I hope the yellow bellied bas***rd that pulled his chute over my friends and relatives gets the book thrown at him. A huge fine and time in jail might dent some of his detestable selfish arrogance.
This 'pilot' showed incompetence on a grand scale. Having decided to descend by BRS onto a densely populated city, he compounds the obscenity by continuing to run the engine. Sort of a rotating sword of Damocles able to chop up kids, parents, and anyone unable to get out of his way. I hope he gets what he deserves ... hero???? don't make me vomit
Wow. Perhaps I shouldn't be shocked because people warned me about the tone of folks on this discussion forum. But you couldn't be clearer, I think.

Just curious. Would you say the same things about pilots who die when a plane crashes into a residential neighborhood?

By coincidence, just saw a news report (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18832850-small-plane-crashes-into-three-homes-erupts-in-flames-in-louisiana?lite) that a King Air 200 crashed into three homes and set them on fire. Location in residential area near Baton Rouge, the capital of Louisiana.

King Air is a twin-engine plane often flown by professional pilots, but maybe not. Surely you judge this King Air pilot the same way? Or not because no Cirrus parachute system? Or is a death penalty suitable justice for your sensibility?

Cheers
Rick

P1DRIVER

8th Jun 2013, 04:24

Jonzarno

Sorry my mistake. NOT intended for you personally. I should have put - We all should as in everyone !!!!!!!!!

P1

Jonzarno

8th Jun 2013, 06:37

Vee-Tail-1

You obviously have insights into the cause of this accident that are not available to the rest of us and perhaps you would share them?

What we do know so far is that the pilot decided to pull the parachute because, for whatever reason, good or bad, he could not control the plane to a safe landing.

Given that he was in that situation, given the METARS at the time, possibly (again, we don't know for sure) in IMC and therefore unable to see where he was going: let's examine the consequences (not his intentions) of his two choices:

1. Pull the chute

He announces what he has done with a loud bang as the rocket fires and the parachute deploys.

He descends at 17 KTS, more or less vertically, clearly visible to everyone on the ground to the extent that people have time to pull out a smartphone, open the camera app and start filming once he is clear of clouds and takes over 30 seconds to reach the ground.

The mistake he apparently did make was to forget to turn off his engine.

2. He doesn't pull

He loses control of the plane and hits the ground at not less than 70 KTS, the clean stall speed of an SR22, obviously with the engine still running as well.

In doing that he has to dissipate at least seventeen times the amount of energy compared to the CAPS descent. As you know energy is a function of the square of speed so if he hit at, say, 100 KTS the amount of energy would be 34 times as much.

If he has completely lost control (and I repeat, we still don't know if or why) there's every chance it could be a spiral dive at a much higher speed with even less warning to those on the ground, even more energy to dissipate and no control whatever over what he hits.

As I say, we don't know what caused the problem. At this stage, all we can sensibly do is to analyse the consequences of the fact that the pilot recognised that he had a problem and followed his training in dealing with it.

A simple analysis of the physics involved as set out above shows that he did the right thing and that is borne out by what actually happened: nobody was killed, not only in this case, but also in every single other CAPS deployment within design limits that there has ever been.

Was he a hero (your word)?

No, I don't think so because that implies an act of courage carried out for the benefit of others.

Was he a good pilot?

In terms of his flying ability and aircraft control, we don't know because - I stress again - we don't know what caused the incident.

In terms of his decision to pull? You bet! It could have been so much worse both for him and for your friends on the ground.

Fuji Abound

8th Jun 2013, 06:42

Jonzarno

That is a repitition of my post above #169, not that i mind ;).

India Four Two

8th Jun 2013, 06:52

A very interesting thread. In post number 22, Jonzarno posted a link to a one-hour talk by Rick Beach of the Cirrus Owner's Association. I'll repost the link here for convenience: CAPS... CONSIDER - M9 Presentation on Vimeo

I took the opportunity to view the whole video and it certainly was an eye-opener. His opinion, based on accident statistics, was that using CAPS should be considered as a first option in an emergency, rather than as a last resort. I recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.

However, my reason for this post was my stunned reaction to comments by Rick during the talk. He stated that he had never spun an aircraft and was not interested in doing so!

I know I'm not proficient in recovering from spins - I've never done it and I'm not about to go ... it's not my purpose in life to be an acrobatic pilot."

A and C

8th Jun 2013, 06:55

I can't make up my mind if this or the Inccident at Heathrow thread currently running on R&N is the worst thread I have seen on Pprune.

What both threads have in common is that the outcome of both incidents was sucsesfull and all the people involved walked away without injury.

However in both cases we have reams of opinion (some of it utterly uninformed) dressed up as fact, we also see some of the armchair experts being very quick to judge those involved.

This forum is always quick to criticise the newspapers for bad reporting but in these two threads the only difference I can see between a lot of the posts and what the newspapers are writing is that on Pprune the aviation jargon is correct.

Jonzarno

8th Jun 2013, 07:19

Fuji

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" :D

It's also a repeat of arguments that have been made on many occasions and which I have never seen refuted by anything other than prejudice unsupported by any facts or real data.

mad_jock

8th Jun 2013, 07:34

However, my reason for this post was my stunned reaction to comments by Rick during the talk. He stated that he had never spun an aircraft and was not interested in doing so!

you see that's where some of us differ. We see it as our responsibility to ensure we have the right skill set for the flying we under take.

Spinning doesn't really press my buttons at all. Yes I used to spin the tommy with students and could patter it but I was never that type of instructor that would go and do it for ****s and giggles. If there was a training reason to do it no problem.

But even to this day not having spun a plane for 5-6 years I have a third sense when things aren't looking right and we are getting near a dangerous attitude. And more importantly how to get away from it.

Spinning quite rightly was removed from the PPL syllabus, the ppl instructors in general didn't have a clue what they were doing. And the students weren't at the point they could either understand what was going on or the cause to give the effect.

But a session or a couple of sessions with an experienced aero instructor even if you have zero intention of ever doing it yours self should be looked on as a skill enhancement for an experienced pilot. And even though it may cost a bit more to go do it in a decent aero machine (no point doing in in a Cessna aerobat) it would certainly be a useful hour with an instructor for experience revalidation.

Instead of looking for technology to cover your gash skills look for training and experience.

thborchert

8th Jun 2013, 08:19

Vee tail,

NOTHING HAPPENED TO ANYONE! What part of that don't you get?

Could have, might have? The sky could fall on your precious friends anytime. Or the earth open an swallow them. Sotty beaming them away. The Borges assimilating them. And so on.

Pace

8th Jun 2013, 08:29

I am with Pace on this ... indeed I hope the yellow bellied bas***rd that pulled his chute over my friends and relatives gets the book thrown at him

That is not my stance in anyway! My stance is that we have a responsibility to those on the ground as well as for our own bacon.
There are times such as Pilot imminent incapacitation over a built up area, structural failure, unrecoverable loss of control, too low to glide clear where I would recommend pulling the chute over a built up area as that action is the lesser of two evils.

What I would find inexcusable and a cowardly act would be a pilot pulling the chute over a built up area where he has altitude to glide clear even if by gliding clear he increased the risk to himself and that I stand by.

I reiterate what MJ says technology cannot be a mask for a lack of skills and that is concerning. Lack of skills appear again and again in the accident stats

Once the chute is pulled the pilot has no control over its landing or rather crashing point. The winds will control that!
I find the argument that a Cirrus has not to date fallen on anybodies head as pathetic because it WILL happen and could have happened in this case! It was pure luck and no more.
An aircraft falling vertically at 25mph (car speeds) and moving at 25 mph horizontally will do a lot of damage.

The aircraft is my favorite choice and partly because of the availability of the chute. So I support the chute 100% I do not support its use for every little emergency and feel we should look at our skills responsibly as well as when and when not to use the chute responsibly.

Finally I do consider the comfort zone of the chute and technology does encourage pilots to fly in conditions beyond their abilities and we need to be aware of that.

Pace

mad_jock

8th Jun 2013, 08:56

just read somewhere else that he was on a RNAV approach.

They changed runway ends on him.

He then elected to take the autopilot out because it would have caused problems programing the box of tricks. Lost his SA got disorientated and pulled the handle.

Just to note if this true.

Guys use your heading mode and alt hold.

And brief yourself that in the event that your previous approach clearance is cancelled you will carry out the missed approach and go to the hold until you are set up for the next. You will more than likely find that the controller will delay the runway swap until your on the ground because you will block the procedure until your ready to go again. Its a pretty standard screw everyone else up for the loco wanting a direct arrival trick. If you know what they are doing you can pretty much block the loco and after a couple of times the loco crew will stop asking for it or the controller will give up trying to prioritise the wishes of the shiny jet.

Also given the choice between an RNAV and a traditional instrument approach always go for a traditional approach backed up by the box of tricks. In the event of anything changing we have to work like one armed paper hangers to get the box of tricks programed and fly on a RNAV. And that's two crew I can imagine what its like for a single crew. Traditional approach you flick a radio if its not already set and your pretty much sorted pull the plate off and the other end is underneath and straight into the out bound radial.

Mind you lot probably don't have the plate for the other end sitting under the current one in likely conditions for a runway change. But hey oh if you have a parachute you don't need to bother.

vee-tail-1

8th Jun 2013, 09:11

Maybe it's something to do with the times we live in ... maybe it's a reflection of the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us. There is arrogance on the roads, on the street, and indeed in the air, particularly shown by some posters here. When will some here get it?! ... you do not have the right to endanger innocent lives on the ground ... you are privileged to play with your toys, and if it gets dangerous go somewhere safe to die or live according to your skills.
People with low skills and lots of money can buy expensive aircraft and fly. The restraints of self preservation, felt by such folk before BRS, kept them from taking stupid risks that might have endangered others. Now those idiots can go anywhere confident that the chute will save them when it all turns to worms ... and never mind the poor sods and their children who just might be killed so that the 'sky gods' can have their fun. :yuk:

englishal

8th Jun 2013, 09:23

Jesus Christ, there are a lot of Morons on Pprune....Some of them hide behind these forums pretending to be Sky Gods when in fact they are probably just flightsimers or wierdos who pretend to be pilots.....You can tell by the responses of some people.

indeed I hope the yellow bellied bas***rd that pulled his chute over my friends and relatives gets the book thrown at him. A huge fine and time in jail might dent some of his detestable selfish arrogance.

Lets assume for a moment that THIS PILOT WAS GOING TO DIE IF HE DIDN'T PULL THE HANDLE....Was he right to pull? YES of course he was. It doesn't matter the reason he was going to die, he made completely the right decision.

Cranfield - Recently a PA38 crashed their, seriously injuring two people. One was reported as a FI. The FI apparently tried to turn back to the field and messed it up...People make mistakes all the time, or else we wouldn't have any form or Pilot Error to report about (and 75% of all accidents are Pilot Error). IF THE REPORTS ARE CORRECT........Would you call this pilot a "Yellow Bellied B**tard" (Other posters words, not mine) and should they get the book thrown at them for allegedly making a mistake almost killing a passenger? NO of course not, it was a mistake.

In both the two accidents above NONE OF US WERE THERE so none of us can comment on EXACTLY the facts, what was going through the pilot's mind at the time, and what the situation was, so there is no need for language like the above poster used about a fellow pilot who may or may not have made a mistake.

IMHO Cirrus has no worse accident stats than any other SEP light aircraft - we have numerous PA28's / PA38's /C172's etc., crash each year and on more than one occasion in recent years flight into IMC by a VFR pilot. The differences in these instances have been all onboard were killed, whereas in the Cirrus, everyone survived.

one post only!

8th Jun 2013, 10:02

Interesting. Bizarrely by continuing to run the engine actually he was helping people on the ground. Unless you happen to be totally deaf and transfixed by a very good book I think 99.9% of the population would notice the aircraft and the spinning blade of death!!!

Anyone would look up. See the aircraft. The large orange parachute. Hear the engine and move to one side. I would love to know who would still stand there screaming while rooted to the spot and then become a victim of the aforementioned spinning blade of death! I think the fact people took the time to film the event does show how noticeable it is!!

Good decision to deploy the chute? Without all the facts who knows? Do people survive forced landings....yes. Do they get them wrong....yes. Do they often end in fatalities over built up areas.....very often. Look at a couple of recent attempts to glide into Barton after a loss of power.

Is technology masking a lack of skills. Yes. Will some people use this chute as a reason to not practice or think about what to do when things go sideways. Very likely!

The fact of the matter is this guy deployed his chute and no-one was killed. It will be interesting to see exactly why he deployed it and what options he had available.

However if it is true that it was following a runway change and then his being unable to simply fly and navigate then that is truly shocking. This points to a deeper issue. Training and recertification. If a runway change is placing a pilot in the position where his options are:

A) lose control and crash following total loss of SA
B) bang out a chute and float down

Then this is just not good enough. This should just NOT be occurring. His deploying of the chute might have been the correct thing to do for him at the time given his skill set etc. and if that's the case then something needs to be done!!

He might have made the right call. However the system failed allowing him to be there in the first place.

Pace

8th Jun 2013, 10:10

Englishall

I appreciate your comments but there is a reason for all this ?
Firstly the Cirrus is unique for its factory fitted BRS system and advanced technology!
It offers the possibility because of the BRS of flying in the face of conventional training!
An example is engine failure where some promote the BRS as a standard action
It is only natural that the aircraft will generate heated discussion,
On literally every thread the posters refer pilots to the POH with the argument that the manufacturer knows best!
The manufacturer does not recommend use of the BRS except it use should be considered if no suitable landing site is available ! They recommend a traditional forced landing in the event of engine failures!
Other bodies recommend the BRS for everything and anything and that is equally a dangerous stance to take
So do not be surprised if heated debate occurs on where and when to use it

Pace

vee-tail-1

8th Jun 2013, 10:27

OK I will try to keep it civil, but some here are wilfully ignoring a very important fact. We private pilots are privileged to fly ... that is we don't have a right to fly, at least in UK airspace. Most particularly in exercising our privilege we are expected not to endanger anyone or anything on the ground. We choose to fly, we take the risks, and we should always make the hard choice to crash land without harm to innocents. Pulling the chute over a congested area is the ultimate expression of selfishness, 'me first' and fcku you!
If use of the chute for any reason in any area becomes the norm, then we will see 'pilots' landing on motorways and roads. Light aircraft and their pilots will be rightly seen by the public as dangerous menaces, and demand yet more closure of GA airfields.
I say again: "WE CHOOSE TO FLY, WE SHOULD TAKE THE RISKS"

Big Pistons Forever

8th Jun 2013, 10:29

He might have made the right call. However the system failed allowing him to be there in the first place.

A pretty good summation of the situation, in my opinion.

I find it interesting that when someone flying say a Bonanza looses SA and then control of the aircraft and crashes killing everyone, you don't seem to get 188 posts in the first day and half.

Yet a soon as somebody pulls the handle on a Cirrus the rush to judge the almost invariably still alive pilot who steps from the intact, frequently repairable airplane; is overwhelming.

It seems to me that many people take the issue extremely personally, like it somehow diminishes the value of their pilots license when somebody pulls the chute.

To those posters I ask; do you really believe that death should be the punishment for screwing up ?

P1DRIVER

8th Jun 2013, 10:32

Madjock,Pace, Veetail 1 and others

We are, I,m affraid, dealing with people who don,t seem to know the basics. A.N.C. (At 76 though the pilot should know ?)

Looking at the whole Aviation industry world wide and the way it trains future pilots, I think this is just the tip of the solid cold water.

Spins ? Never been shown or practiced the insipient stages. Mmmmm.

Relying on a box of tricks to get them down from IMC. (When sometimes they shouldn.t even be there,not saying this is the case here.)

Yes, you are right - The parachute did its job.

You guys carry on. :ugh:

baldwinm

8th Jun 2013, 10:33

Guys use your heading mode and alt hold.

Sound advice - give yourself chance to calm down, get yourself orientated and "re-brief" yourself on the approach before doing anything else.

Big Pistons Forever

8th Jun 2013, 10:41

Spins ? Never been shown or practiced the insipient stages. Mmmmm.

That hoary old chestnut again:rolleyes:. In the US and Canada the number of spin accidents decreased when spins were removed from the PPL syllabus.

Like most of the posters on this thread and their inaccurate and/or ignorant posts on the Cirrus chute pull statistics, no need to let the facts get in the way of the posturing. :ugh:

Pace

8th Jun 2013, 11:19

A lot of the route cause for these disagreements must lie with the lack of direction by the manufacturer.
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.
Ok if the BRS was an addon or a not officially approved mod then I could understand their stance but this is an integral part of the aircraft.
All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Detailed opinion on its use appears to come from outside bodies which is not acceptable. The POH is the Bible.
In the early days when little operational data was available I could understand the manufacturer being nervous but now operational data is available its about time the manufacturers guidance on the chutes use is put in the POH

Pace

cockney steve

8th Jun 2013, 13:25

@ vee tail 1 People with low skills and lots of money can buy expensive aircraft and fly. The restraints of self preservation, felt by such folk before BRS, kept them from taking stupid risks that might have endangered others

Perhaps the irony has escaped you? the V-tail Bonanza was a "high-performance" aircraft of it's day....bought , stereotypically, by Doctors, dentists and lawyers who'se wallets bought what their skills could not keep up with......hence the popular soubriquet "Widow maker"

Do you really think that every high-performance car or motorcycle sold, is bought by an adequately skilled driver?....same here, The big issue, as i see it, in this particular incident, is why he didn't climb clear or descend into VMC, if , indeed that was his SA problem.

Sounds like the aircraft got ahead of him when an unplanned change was thrust upon him. Perhaps he should have limited himself to a Chief or similar.... capable of really slow , controlled flight with plenty of time for old brains to machinate.:}

just the opinion of a non-pilot, so probably not worth a carrot. :O (can't be bothered with Flight Sim! - but have a RC helicopter and sim! )

thborchert

8th Jun 2013, 13:29

Pace,

Since you keep coming back to the danger to those on the ground, here's my thinking:

1. Statistically, people on the ground get rarely hurt in GA aircraft accidents. It happens, but it is exceedingly rare.

2. By using a chute, I am dramatically reducing both my impact energy and my footprint during a crash or emergency landing.

Hence, among the multitude of things to considers during a forced landing, damage to people on the ground is one of them, but it is not front and center since it is a low probability event. As, I have to add, this CAPS landing in a impressively demonstrates.

englishal

8th Jun 2013, 13:33

I think a lot of the debate is due to attitude and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Maybe even jealousy?

Anyway, this guy did the right thing. Pulling the chute minimised energy from his crash, gave people on the ground forewarning of his arrival, and not a single person was hurt. How can one argue with this? Power off landing, bang, there goes a house as the options are bad, loss of control - high speed impact into a school playground....who knows what the outcome would have been, and NO ONE would have known before the incident. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and just maybe the pilot would have done things differently next time, but that is learning.

Anyway we still don't know why the accident happened. if it was loss of control in IMC then quite probably the chute saved a lot of lives. You can argue whether or not he should have been there, but that wouldn't have been much good to those that had been killed so I don't know why we bother arguing about stuff like this.

belowradar

8th Jun 2013, 13:39

Beginning to see a really obvious difference between our attitudes and opinions as flyers and the more reasonable and balanced views of pilots who live outside the UK....there really is a lot of unbalanced nonsense being spouted

As for lack of guidance by the manufacturer they have provided a wealth of information and guidance to their official training network so if you have completed formal Cirrus training from a CSIP you will know exactly what to do and when to do it without any ambiguity whatsoever... If you haven't had this training you will not be so well informed

If you are going to fly a Cirrus make sure you train with a CSIP, maintain currency and attend recurrence training events.

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2013, 15:27

Hence, among the multitude of things to considers during a forced landing, damage to people on the ground is one of them, but it is not front and center since it is a low probability event.

But the low flying rules are in place because it's a legal requirement to put it at the front and centre.

thborchert

8th Jun 2013, 15:37

Well, three points:

1. The British low flying rules are more strict than elsewhere.
2. One could argue people were not in danger in this case (or most others), as the result shows.
3. IMHO, anyone who is flying in the densely populated parts of Europe and thinks he can always fly in a way to be sure not to hit anyone on the ground is very much kidding themselves.

belowradar

8th Jun 2013, 15:58

As previously mentioned the UK low flying rules do not apply if you are landing or taking off at an airport which it looks like this chap was so he was not obliged to make up his own final approach profile by maintaining glide ability (although the approach to westerly runway does keep you high over Cheltenham)

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2013, 16:14

Pilots by definition accept flying risks to themselves and their aircraft once they make the decision to fly. However fixed wing pilots are legally required to abide by the "glide clear" rule. You are required to plan this in advance, no argument about it, the CAA take no prisoners in this respect.

If a pilot in UK fails to plan his flight properly, loses his engine in a place where he cannot glide clear where he should have been able to, then as a last resort uses the BRS to save his own neck, that pilot had better be prepared to take the legal and financial consequences of those actions.

With regard to this particular occurrence, which was over a UK town, it may or may not have been caused by full or partial engine failure and the evidence already seen/heard suggests it may well not have been. However, one thing is certain - it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground, especially as the prop was still turning, presumably under engine power. The pilot may have suffered some other major failure, either aircraft or human and felt he had no other option. In which case the "glide clear" argument doesn't apply.

It has been stated a number of times that the aircraft was flying a GNSS approach to RW27 at the time it went down. Earlier I posted the METARS bracketing the time the incident occurred. These show the wind as easterly and there is also a GNSS approach for RW09. I'm sure the reasons for that anomaly will come out in the AAIB report.

sdbeach

8th Jun 2013, 18:29

A lot of the route cause for these disagreements must lie with the lack of direction by the manufacturer.
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.

All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.

Not true. What version of the Cirrus POH are you referring?

Cirrus has been an advocate for safety and has provided guidance. In the current POH Revision A10, 9 May 2011, see Section 10, Safety Information, for 8 pages of guidance.

Furthermore, Section 3, Emergency Procedures, provides guidance for the use of CAPS where "CAPS is determined to be safer than continued flight and landing." CAPS guidance is provided under these emergency procedures: Engine Failure in Flight, Engine Power Loss, Inadvertent Spiral Dive During IMC Flight, Spins, Landing Emergencies, Ditching.

Seems you have an obsolete version in mind.

Cheers
Rick

Mariner9

8th Jun 2013, 18:30

The glide clear exemption for landing doesn't apply in Proon moral outrage land it would seem.

Parachutes were banned by the RFC in WW1. Some attitudes are seemingly slow to change :rolleyes:

mad_jock

8th Jun 2013, 18:52

The British low flying rules are more strict than elsewhere.

No they are not, nothing stopping you flying along at 20ft agl if you like as long as there isn't any person, vessel or man made object with in 500ft of you.

Pace

8th Jun 2013, 20:20

Rick

This is new !! If so I am
Very pleased that Cirrus have finally done this !
Can anyone give a link to these Cirtus recommendations as I do not have a POH and took my own info from stuff published here!
But yes go with the Cirrus recommendations! Not some outside body

Pace

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2013, 20:42

The glide clear exemption for landing doesn't apply in PPRuNe moral outrage land it would seem.

Supposition, on your part, I'd say. :hmm:

sdbeach

8th Jun 2013, 21:02

Can anyone give a link to these Cirtus recommendations as I do not have a POH and took my own info from stuff published here!
Link to Cirrus website with online POH documents for SR20 and SR22 in Europe:
CIRRUS online POH (http://www.cirruslink.com/mycirrus/onlinepoh.aspx)

For the current SR22 POH revision A10:
http://servicecenters.cirrusdesign.com/techpubs/pdf/POH/REVS/13772-001RA10.pdf

And for much more about training for the utilisation of CAPS, see
CAPS Training (http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/caps)

But yes go with the Cirrus recommendations! Not some outside body Ah, shucks. We really mean well! ;)

That outside body, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) enjoys a very close and collaborative relationship with the Flight Standards group in Cirrus Aircraft. The advocacy of COPA members, and in particular the flight instructors at the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program we run, were instrumental in convincing Cirrus to make substantial changes. Some of them appear in revision A10, more appear in the POH for the G5 models.

Our hope is that continued collaboration will result in even more changes to thwart the misinformation and misapplication of cautious wording in Cirrus documents. For instance, the maximum demonstrated airspeed during certification was 133 KIAS but actual deployments have happened at 168, 171, 187 and 190 KIAS with no damage to the parachute system and all aboard survived without injury (although the airframe had substantial damage, at least one of those three has been repaired and is flying again).

It's an interesting blend of engineering and psychology, this pilot training stuff.

Cheers
Rick

aka COPA Safety Liaison, CPPP Co-Chair, COPA Treasurer, and Cirrus owner with 3430 hours on the original cylinders of my 2001 SR22

thborchert

8th Jun 2013, 21:30

it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground,

And what else would it have been? And what a fine example that those chances are exceedingly good!

Jetblu

8th Jun 2013, 21:31

I have been following this thread with great interest. I will be the first to admit that I have been a silent disbeliever for years of this uncontrolled parachute descent caper in the Cirrus.

Following recent events, my personal outlook has somewhat changed and for me, sdbeach and few other prominent posters have truly put this baby to bed.

It will be exceptionally hard to keep everyone happy with this methodology and revised way of thinking, but sometimes one just cannot keep everyone happy.

Chute happens! Safe flying everyone. :)

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2013, 21:42

Quote:
it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground,
And what else would it have been? And what a fine example that those chances are exceedingly good!

You guys are funny!

Glad you find it amusing. Read the rest of the paragraph and digest that, too.

The SR-22 pilot who nearly ran into me today on his way to Leicester might have not found it so funny. Thankfully my lookout was better than his and although it was his responsibility to give way, he did not do so, presumably only because he hadn't seen my aircraft. I finally took avoiding action on his behalf, so he got to save his BRS 'chute for another day.

thborchert

8th Jun 2013, 21:48

We have to be thankful all those überpilots frequent pprune. I know of no other place with so many of them. Maybe you can tell us how to make more of you? But that would kind of ruin it, wouldn't it?

(Please tell me your transponder was on - almost all Cirrii have traffic detectors, another tech gimmick real pilots don't need. And yes, the rather obvious point I'm trying to make is that the aircraft type has zero connection to your experience)

maxred

8th Jun 2013, 22:11

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2013, 22:21

My transponder was on, with mode C, as it always is. Also my TCAS was on, again, as it always is, glass cockpit. That is how I first realised an aircraft initially on a parallel track had levelled at my altitude, turned right towards me and was quite closing from my left, (aircraft blind side) at the same altitude.

I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.

By the way, your posts are becoming unnecessarily confrontational. The rules of the forum say play the ball, not the player.

Jonzarno

8th Jun 2013, 22:24

Quote:
Crashed Cirrus Data Recorder Tells Aerobatic Tale

Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??

No, they didn't and what they did was inexcusable, stupid and, sadly also suicidal.

BTW I am a Cirrus pilot myself and strong advocate of the CAPS system.

My transponder was on, with mode C, as it always is. Also my TCAS was on, again, as it always is, glass cockpit. That is how I first realised an aircraft initially on a parallel track had levelled at my altitude, turned right towards me and was quite closing from my left, (aircraft blind side) at the same altitude.

I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.

I'm glad you were aware of him and took the action you did. (It wasn't me ;))

I suspect that many Cirrus drivers (I fly one myself and do have the Skywatch system fitted) are too used to flying airways and may have eyes inside the cockpit when flying VFR. I looked at my own logbook today and only 10% of my flying is VFR.

When I do fly VFR, I don't trust the Skywatch, get a traffic service if I can and religiously scan for other planes.

It's a good lesson for us all to learn: see and avoid, and get a traffic service if one is available.

Pace & Mad Jock

I suspect that there may not be as much between us as appears to be the case.

Pace: the thrust of your argument seems to be that pilots should not blindly pull the parachute if there is a possibility of gliding clear of any potential hazard on the ground.

Broadly, I agree with this: the point at issue is at what point do you pull the parachute? In other words, do you fly to some predetermined minimum and then pull, or do you fly to scene of the crash?

The basic limit, as expressed in the guidance notes for the use of the system, is a height of 2000 feet AGL. Given that there have been successful deployments at less than 500 feet, my own PERSONAL minimum would be 1000 feet: YMMV! (BTW this pull may well have been lower than that).

So, given a situation in which I have no confidence of being able to land the aircraft safely conventionally, I would try to glide clear of any built-up area until either it became clear I wasn't going to make it or untilI I hit 1000 feet (as an example on an approach that went badly wrong and I couldn't climb out to safety) and then pull the parachute: no, it's not ideal, but it's the best compromise!

Jock

You seem to be making two points:

Firstly, it is indispensable for pilots to get the maximum possible amount training and use it properly.

I completely agree with this and try to implement it myself. For what it's worth, this is one area where I disagree with what Rick Beach said in his presentation (so far the only one!): I have done spin training (not in a Cirrus!) and found it very useful. It is also worth making the point that, during the EASA certification process Cirrus aircraft were found to recover from spins with no problems.

Far too many accidents are caused by pilot all kinds of aircraft, not just Cirrus, getting themselves into situations that they are not qualified to deal with.

For my part, I have spent some time in a full motion Cirrus simulator dealing with emergencies: on a number of occasions, I have managed to "kill" myself trying to deal with them. This serves as a good illustration of the fact that you don't know what is going to happen until it happens!

The main lesson that I have learned from those sessions is how to integrate the use of the parachute system into the process of managing a number of different scenarios. In other words, it is not just a matter of: "see a warning light, pull the handle!" but much more question of assessing at what point do you need to pull the handle to save your life and being ready to pull it.

What I mean by this is that there comes a point in dealing with some emergency scenarios in which the light goes on in your head when you realise that you are not going to get out of it alive. At that point, provided it happens early enough, having a parachute available is something of a relief. Even in a SIM!

Secondly, I would summarise as: real pilots don't need no stinkin' parachutes!

Sorry, but I really don't agree: if I ever find myself in a situation I can't deal with, I want that red-handle available to me and, perhaps more importantly, to any passengers that I have in the plane with me.

A number of people posting here have said that we should be responsible for our own actions and take the consequences. That is fair enough: but why should that apply to our innocent passengers as well? If I screw up, should the death penalty apply to them too?

Please read this post in this positive spirit in which it is intended: we all want to enjoy flying and do it safely. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to combine technology, training, equipment and common sense in the best possible proportions.

YMMV!

By the way, if either of you find yourselves going to Las Vegas, I'll be happy to try to get you a special deal on a Cirrus SIM session there: then you can try the scenarios for yourself!

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 00:54

Crashed Cirrus Data Recorder Tells Aerobatic Tale (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/cirrus_crash_flight_data_record_aerobatic_boynton_november_2 08824-1.html)

Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??
It's actually worse than that. The NTSB published the flight data for three flights in which the pilot performed aileron rolls. The first two days earlier at 1700 feet AGL, the second at 600 feet AGL on the morning flight to an airshow, and the fatal one at 220 feet AGL coming home. What is not in the report are the actions of the two other airplanes, both acrobatic certified planes, flying in formation with the Cirrus. I suspect peer pressure played a role in the pilot's fatal aeronautical decision-making.

Check out the link now, as the author has included my animation of the three aileron rolls. You'll see how the plane tumbles at the top of the fatal maneuver.

It's us, the pilots. Did I mention that the Cirrus is not approved for aerobatic maneuvers?

Cheers
Rick

aka COPA Safety Liaison, CPPP Co-Chair, COPA Treasurer, and Cirrus owner with 3430 hours on the original cylinders of my 2001 SR22

Big Pistons Forever

9th Jun 2013, 01:59

Rick

You are wasting your time, the "skygods" of pprune don't want to be confused by the facts, their world is binary.

Them = Greatest Pilot that ever lived who will never screw up

Cirrus Pilot = An incompetent boob who won't die like a man

:rolleyes: :ugh:

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 06:20

Secondly, I would summarise as: real pilots don't need no stinkin' parachutes

That's not my view.

My view is very similar to having air bags in cars. But currently we have ford fiesta 1.1 drivers jumping into the old 944 turbo. Then just holding it together normally and then it gets icy but they still drive it like a ford fiesta.

As for the first point 100% and it all goes back to those lessons 3-13 of the ppl syllabus not being taught properly and a lot of the time made up airline ops are being taught for critical stages of flight which are inappropriate for the class of aircraft being flown.

Now those of you that post on pprune I think are in the high end of cirrus owners you take your machine seriously and you undertake to know your machine and also take continuation training. From what I can see you basically run it like a type rating for a larger aircraft. System reviews and also skills reviews how often you do that I don't know. But you seem to take pride in knowing about your machine and its capabilities.

Now the other end of the spectrum is what all the discussion is about and to be honest it is a huge discussion at the moment with the larger machines as well. Its the Liveware and software integration of an automated high information flight deck and the lose of manual skills and SA while letting the machine do all the work. (Liveware and software are referring to the SHELL model if you google CRM SHELL model)

In reality those machines of yours are way more "advanced" both systems interaction wise and flight deck wise than most airliners. Both PACE and myself are captains on quite old basic machines we live and work on our skill set which keeps things safe but we have had a fair share of oh :mad: moments and survived. But you don't carry the redundancy that we do. I do know a Q400 Captain that fly's both cirrus and his work machine and he has said that the cirrus has more features than his work machine. To which I replied "what you mean it doesn't go tech every other sector"

I fly two different classes of machine one that's EFIS and autopilot and one thats steam and no AP both regional TP's. My skills and SA are by far higher when flying the Steam TP. The managed EFIS cockpit needs a completely different skill set to the manual aircraft. I must admit I have a tendency to revert to steam mode if the automatics give me any nonsense. But I do have quite developed manual IR skills, developed flying in the all pants wx Scotland can throw at you. This was frowned apon for years, this is now changing in the airline world with every AOC in Europe now having to define the policy for keeping pilots manual skills current.

This currency and lack of knowledge isn't limited to just the GA world on certain types of aircraft there have been several high profile cases in the commercial world where pilots have pulled instead of relaxed the back pressure on the controls to deal with a stall.

And then we have other high profile cases when the pilot stuck it in the river and got rid of the drag flap and made the runway and I might add gain the shortest landing at Heathrow record when all survived.

If by these discussion here we motivate owners to get their fingers out and develop themselves and there skills and decrease the risk of requiring the use of their chute the debates have been worth it.

But personally the amount of risk which has been negated by carrying the chute isn't worth it for me for the cost. If I had one it wouldn't change my risk assessments and go, no go decision or what's an acceptable flight profile for a SEP.

Maybe making it a type rating would be the way forward. To first of all ensure that the standard of instruction is fit for purpose and also that the pilots are fit for purpose.

The only down side is that EASA isn't fit for purpose and wouldn't actually implement something which is practical, cost effective and fit for purpose.

A and C

9th Jun 2013, 08:20

NO to another bit of EASA paperwork, the Cirrus is not some wonder fast mega plane it is an SEP and should be treated as such, a type rating is totaly unnecessary.

The only difference is that the ballistic chute gives you more options and the decision on when to use it needs to be taken on the ground long before you fly the aircraft having carefully digested the advice from Cirrus.

thborchert

9th Jun 2013, 08:41

By the way, your posts are becoming unnecessarily confrontational. The rules of the forum say play the ball, not the player.

True. Apologies.

And you might have made the same remark when the regulars became much more than just "confrontational", hundreds of posts back. But I guess you'll consider this another confrontational post...

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 09:07

I agree A and C it is only a SEP

But with technology and systems which are far more advanced than my heap of poo TP which does require a TR.

And that level of technology leads people to get into situations which are way beyond there skill set.

It doesn't help that any instructor can make up there own syllabus for conversion training. It seems to me the instructor needs a TRI level of system knowledge to be able to complete the level of training competently

How many GA aircraft have been lost due to lose of control in IMC in Europe in the last 10 years and how many have had IR's flying them?

Jonzarno

9th Jun 2013, 09:29

I am also against insisting on a type rating as such.

I do, however, strongly support the idea of proper training for anyone wanting to fly any technically advanced aircraft including the Cirrus. I think most insurance companies insist on it anyway.

In the case of the Cirrus, it is really important to get this training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor Program (CSIP) certified instructor. Not only will you get the best insight into the aircraft and it's systems, but you also get clear guidance on how the CAPS system can best be integrated into your emergency handling.

In addition to this COPA runs regular Pilot Proficiency Programs and Critical Decision Making seminars which reinforce this and, IMHO, significantly enhance safety as well as knowledge of the aircraft and it's systems.

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 09:54

That advanced training is only as good as the foundations which it builds on.

No foundations and as soon as the poo hits the fan there is nothing to stop the stack of cards falling down.

A and C

9th Jun 2013, 09:58

Thirty years ago if this inccident had happened with a Beech or Mooney there would be two dead people and a high energy impact that would have done far more damage that knocking down a few trees and a fence, the trouble is that these days life is perceived as risk free with any accident as being the fault of someone.

Now due to the ambulance chasing lawyers some above see this as a major inccident.............it is not , a wrecked aircraft, a few broken trees, a demolished fence and a bit of work needed from a gardener.

No one was hurt.

All this suff about the risk to people on the ground is all very well and we all don't want to land an aircraft in a built up area but the fact remains that the chances of a member of the public being killed by an aircraft are so small that they are an insignificant risk to life. What the BRS does guarantee that the aircraft falling from the sky does so with little energy and won't arrive with the impact of an artillery shell futher reducing the risk.

I regret the inccident did not happen over open ground largely because if it had not hit anything on the way down I could have made a few bob glueing it back together.

dont overfil

9th Jun 2013, 09:59

And that level of technology leads people to get into situations which are way beyond there skill set.

It is clearly the performance of the aircraft or the type of pilots it encourages that is the problem.

I hear of no such problems with G1000 equipped Cessnas which have been with us since 2004.

D.O.

007helicopter

9th Jun 2013, 10:10

I hear of no such problems with G1000 equipped Cessnas which have been with us since 2004.

D.O.

Might be because compared to the size of the fleet, there are 5000+ Cirrus and how many G1000 equipped Cessna's?

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 10:17

I think that's more to do with the integration between the G1000 and the autopilot if there is even one fitted and then if you take into account the number of those that actually work cuts the numbers down again.

I suspect there are very few Cessna G1000 pilots who will LNAV using it and even less that will let it drive the AP for an approach.

But if you take into account all the caravans as well there will be similar numbers.

Were as the cirrus the whole lot is integrated as a selling point. And the tendency is to let the automatics do the work. Which is fine until something happens like a runway swap or system failure and when the pilot doesn't have either the experience or the skill set to sort it out the handle gets pulled.

But the main fact is that the aircraft should never have been near that situation with that pilot at the controls. The fact that they lived to tell the tale is a good thing. Darwin law has been bypassed.

Maybe we should have a separate rating for pilots that are competent enough to fly without a parachute.

Pace

9th Jun 2013, 10:31

Jonzarno

We are not that far apart ; ) remember my posting style is designed to encourage debate!
The Cirrus and chute would be my choice for a touring single!
I would even question your deck of 1000 feet? It depends on circumstances! Is the aircraft flyable ? If not and you are heading at high speed to impact the ground then surely any deployment which may reduce that impact is better than none ?
Hence a healthy debate on the subject can only be good
I will post my own list of deploy or not deploy and I am sure you will see we are not very far apart

Pace

007helicopter

9th Jun 2013, 10:32

Maybe we should have a separate rating for pilots that are competent enough to fly without a parachute.

MJ Perhaps we could all come to the highlands to learn with you and get a sign off when you think we are competent enough, that would surely solve the problem :D

007helicopter

9th Jun 2013, 10:35

I regret the inccident did not happen over open ground largely because if it had not hit anything on the way down I could have made a few bob glueing it back together.

Heard the wing was cut off with a petrol circular saw to remove it from the garden, so have to agree with you unlikely to be stuck back together.

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 11:35

Wouldn't need to be me, there are plenty out there with the same back ground and mind set.

If your near COV get one of the ex Atlantic training team to give you a few hours instruction.

I will guarantee you will learn something, your normal work load will be decreased and you will have more capacity. I think a lot are running maxed out and have no spare capacity which is causing half the issues.

Any of the pro high houred guys on here could do it which ever side of the fence they sit.

Although to be honest you just have to keep saying to yourself "what's next, what's next, what's my escape plan, what's next" and repeat until you have shut down and the what's next is a pint in the pub.

ShyTorque

9th Jun 2013, 12:20

True. Apologies.

And you might have made the same remark when the regulars became much more than just "confrontational", hundreds of posts back. But I guess you'll consider this another confrontational post...

Apology accepted, and no I don't - apart from the last comment. I've no idea why you decided to vent your spleen on me and I do object to that. I am perfectly willing to accept that using the BRS could be justified, but only if there is absolutely no alternative. My only bone of contention is whether the risk, however small, to persons on the ground should be considered not worthy of consideration, i.a.w. the law and not worth planning for! To say the aviation low flying rules laws of any state are over-restrictive shows a dangerous arrogance.

IMO, any safety device is worth having, BRS included.

[Shame no-one makes a backpack version for motorcyclists. Then riders of high speed bikes could disregard the highway code and speed limits. For example, if they do screw up in town and all else fails, they can save themselves by leaving the bike to it's own devices... Pedestrians etc ? Just collateral damage. ;) ].

thborchert

9th Jun 2013, 12:37

To say the aviation low flying rules laws of any state are over-restrictive shows a dangerous arrogance.Didn't say that (I think). I do, however, believe that the "glide free" rule is broken by most pilots on most flights. It also seems it was not at all relevant in this case.

Every pilot has to make their own assessment of risk, weighing the multitude of risks against each other where they are in conflict. To me, the very, very, very low probability of even hitting someone on the ground under parachute, let alone injuring them, means that I will not be concerned with it when compared to considering my own life as being directly and immediately threatened. Because that is the situation the pilot is in when he/she pulls the chute. For him/her, in that situation, of course there is "no alternative". What else? No amount of "Monday morning quarter-backing" will change that the pilot felt his life in immediate danger when he pulled.

If I should ever have to pull, I fully expect it to be in a situation that - in hindsight - will seem utterly trivial and completely avoidable. The statistics of aviation accidents (in GA as well as in professional flying) are just tremendously tilted towards that outcome, because most of us humans are quite fallible - even if not all see it (on this forum, especially, it seems). But I'll be alive to beat myself up about having been a complete idiot.

Gertrude the Wombat

9th Jun 2013, 13:16

I do, however, believe that the "glide free" rule is broken by most pilots on most flights.
Really?? - I don't plan to break it, and I don't believe I've ever been "forced" to by worse-than-forecast weather.

When there has been reason for an instructor to look over my flight planning it's been

"What height are you going to be flying over that bit?"

"x,000'"

"Why?"

"Glide clear rule."

"Jolly good."

(Of course, flying over Cambridge at 1,000', accidentally managing in the process to give passengers a good view of the city, isn't "breaking the glide clear rule", it's "joining cross-wind" which is a legitimate part of the landing procedure and therefore exempt from the glide clear rule.)

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 16:01

The only difference is that the ballistic chute gives you more options and the decision on when to use it needs to be taken on the ground long before you fly the aircraft having carefully digested the advice from Cirrus.
As evidenced by this thread, calling the parachute the only difference fails to reveal the significant challenge in getting Cirrus pilots to consider its use.

Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.

For Cirrus pilots, even after carefully digesting the advice, even after training with skilled Cirrus instructors, we see them go from a briefing to flying a sim and in 5 minutes killing themselves because they didn't pull the red CAPS handle. The sim instructors claim that "they usually only have to kill them once" before these pilots realize what is needed to maintain awareness of the option to pull the parachute handle.

Think. Train. Practice. All of those are necessary so pilots will have a better chance of utilising the parachute, let alone the skills to avoid needing one! ;)

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 16:25

englishal

9th Jun 2013, 16:42

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 16:42

Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.
Of course they can train not to get into the situation that requires to use it.
And most of us certainly don't need one for the minuscule risk of engine failure or in flight break up.
Of course they can train to avoid the situation. On that no reasonable person disagrees.

However, what about the oft-quoted minuscule risk of ____ (fill in your favorite factor involved in fatal accidents)?

Reading news reports of other airplane crashes, engine failure happens often enough to make headlines. In those crashes with a minuscule risk, the pilots are 100% dead. That's the big problem with low probability events with catastrophic outcomes -- you don't survive!

It's the catastrophic outcome that I would like to avoid. Training helps. But it does not assure me of a survivable outcome.

Cheers
Rick

A and C

9th Jun 2013, 16:59

I think that what you and I are saying has more to do with illustrating that we live in two country's divided by a common language rather than any real difference in opinion on the use of the chute.

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 17:02

It would be very interesting to compare the number of fatalities or serious injuries in SEP aircraft since the Cirrus was released, in both Cirrus and other aircraft and then normalise the hours to give an X:100000 hrly figure to compare the Cirrus with other aeroplanes...

But I can't be bothered to do it. I would be very happy to fly a Cirrus with the BRS and if I needed to pull the handle, then I would.

SDBeach, you are outnumbered on these forums by predominately British pilots. In Britian we have a CAN'T DO attitude in aviation, compared to the US CAN DO attitude, so you will always lose the argument (or rather someone will always have to have the last word!)

Good luck, I am going to pull the Red Handle and bail out of this one now.........
Hope you haven't bailed out just yet because I have some data for your query.

This is taken from my work posted on the COPA site: Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CirrusSafety.aspx)

The NTSB and the FAA survey of general aviation activity provide numbers for the GA fleet, although predominantly in the US or N-reg airplanes. For 2011, the reported fatal accident rate was 1.17 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flying time. Since 2000, the number has ranged from 1.16 to 1.34 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

Caution: these numbers include instructional and commercial operations, where there are few fatal accidents and about 40% of the flying hours. The NTSB published numbers for Personal and Business flying. In 2011, Personal and Business flying was 2.38 and ranged from 1.91 to 2.49 since 2000. (Note: this rate has increased over the past decade, contrary to conventional wisdom that the GA fatal accident rate has been steady and resistant to change. It got worse!)

So you might compare the Cirrus numbers to 1.17 or 2.38 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

How to get the Cirrus numbers? COPA tracks all fatal accidents, including those foreign accidents for which the NTSB rarely gets involved, like Brazil and Germany. Since 2000, there have been 96 fatal Cirrus accidents and about 5,700,000 flying hours. Flying time is tracked by the Reliability Engineering folks at Cirrus Aircraft by serial number based on warranty cards, service bulletins and parachute repacks.

In the past 12 months, we have 8 fatal accidents and about 700,000 flying hours, or 1.16 Cirrus fatals per 100,000 hours.

Since the Cirrus fleet of 5400 airplanes is 1/40 of the SEP fleet, small numbers perturb the rates, so we also track 36 months, where we have 33 fatal accidents and about 2,000,000 flying hours or 1.63 fatals per 100,000 hours. (Sadly, we had a very bad interval in fall of 2011 with 8 accidents in just 3 months.)

So, given the work of tracking Cirrus flying hours, you can compare the numbers you like:
1.16 Cirrus fatal accidents/100,000 hours in past 12 months
1.17 GA fatal accidents/100,000 hours in 2011
1.63 Cirrus fatal accidents/100,000 hours in past 36 months
2.38 GA Personal & Business fatal accidents/100,000 hours in 2011

Here is that in chart form:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.56.Attached+Files/6862.cirrus-vs-ga-fatal-accident-rate.png

Have fun.

Cheers
Rick

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 17:14

I think that what you and I are saying has more to do with illustrating that we live in two country's divided by a common language rather than any real difference in opinion on the use of the chute.
I agree with you -- and not some others! ;)

Because of the influence of skeptical opinions and premature judgments, we believe that Cirrus pilots fail to take seriously the differences.

As I stated on the Flyer forum, "70 people lived and 115 people died in Cirrus aircraft based on the difference of a pilot's actions." Those were in situations eerily similar, such as spatial disorientation, where one pilot pulled the handle and all survived while another pilot attempted to recover and people died. Add them up and you get big numbers. That motivates continued vigilance and effort to encourage Cirrus pilots to fly safely.

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 17:14

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 17:23

Note: this rate has increased over the past decade, contrary to conventional wisdom that the GA fatal accident rate has been steady and resistant to change. It got worse!)
That says to me that the quality of pilots has gone down.

So instead of bring the quality up you put a tech fix in.

Which will lead to the quality going down again and so it will be a viscous circle.
Good grief. Of course, we are in a viscous circle. Consequently, general aviation needs to both attract more people to flying and keep them from killing themselves!

What's the motivation to get better? Criticism and ridicule won't do it. Taking away the toys won't do it. Just ask your rebellious teenagers.

I'm convinced that we need to establish a culture of safety that encourages safe practices. Note the word encourages. Note the word culture.

Frankly, the culture of PPRuNe sucks. Disparaging remarks seem tolerated and taken for a badge of honor. Not likely to fix things.

Cheers
Rick

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 17:41

If you put the same effort into trying to get exercise 3-13 taught properly in the PPL syllabus as you do convincing people to buy a plane with chute you would save a whole heap more lives than your doing now.

Your trying to treat the symptoms currently, not cure the disease.

I'm convinced that we need to establish a culture of safety that encourages safe practices. Note the word encourages. Note the word culture.

yep focus on your pilots being able to fly straight and level without any automatics in.

Make them learn how to attitude fly.

Know the danger attitudes and how to get away from them.

Make them be able to fly without all the boxes of tricks doing half the work for them.

Do PIC courses and planning courses, met courses.

Oh a get them to look out the window and have some sort of clue about what's around them and what there options are at any given moment of the flight.

Then test them every twelve months to get them to step up there game at least once per year so they at least practise the black art of flying with nothing working.

Do that and your 115 will be a small fraction of the lives you will save.

007helicopter

9th Jun 2013, 17:48

But you have fiddled the figures by removing a section of the results. Your numbers are still above the sectors levels.

Maybe the reason why the fatalities are lower in the instructional and commercial side of things is because the pilots know what the hell they are doing.

MJ Your comments while sometimes controversial and critical do at least promote debate.

Where has SDbeach fiddled the figures? - I believe they are presented factually and accurately, he is not trying to promote the Cirrus aircraft being better by skewing figures but present facts that encourage Cirrus pilots to take safety much more seriously and raise awareness of the chute as an option that can be trained for and used properly.

You seem very much against any technical advancement or innovation with GA.

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 18:04

No I am not actually

To be honest engines would be my first port of call.

They have fiddled with the figures because they have removed a chunk of experience by saying that instruction flights and commercial are removed because that then lowers the national averages for that sector.

It looks pretty good when you take them out but then you think that the rest of that sector are 25-30 year old aircraft with corrosion issues and engines past TBO. And you want to compare them with less than 10 year old new ones.

So get the figures for similar production dates and compare like with like. They more than likely have, and have seen that there isn't much difference statistically between the two groups because if there was you can be sure as hell they would have it in the marketing. And they would be pushing the FAA to make a chute standard in that class of aircraft.

sdbeach

9th Jun 2013, 18:11

If you put the same effort into trying to get exercise 3-13 taught properly in the PPL syllabus as you do convincing people to buy a plane with chute you would save a whole heap more lives than your doing now.
Let's be clear about my personal motivations. I gain nothing from people buying a Cirrus. I believe in the safety innovations inherent in the fleet of aircraft that I own and fly. I rebut misinformation and misunderstandings when aware of them. I spend my energy in helping those who have decided to fly a Cirrus and to do so safely.
Your trying to treat the symptoms currently, not cure the disease. Welcome to the freedoms of general aviation, where there is neither the economic incentive to keep your pilot job nor the oversight found in commercial or military flying. So, what do you do, eh?I'm convinced that we need to establish a culture of safety that encourages safe practices. Note the word encourages. Note the word culture.yep focus on your pilots being able to fly straight and level without any automatics in.
Make them learn how to attitude fly.
Know the danger attitudes and how to get away from them.
Make them be able to fly without all the boxes of tricks doing half the work for them.
Do PIC courses and planning courses, met courses.
Oh a get them to look out the window and have some sort of clue about what's around them and what there options are at any given moment of the flight.
Then test them every twelve months to get them to step up there game at least once per year so they at least practise the black art of flying with nothing working.
Do that and your 115 will be a small fraction of the lives you will save.Interesting list of suggestions.

For the record, the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CPPPHome.aspx) does all of that recurrent training -- except for the testing part, which is left to the regulators. A CPPP provides 15 hours of Cirrus-specific ground instruction and 6 hours of flight instruction in a weekend event. The ground courses cover safety statistics review, procedures review, avionics, weather, engine management, risk assessment, CAPS decision-making, aviation survival, and maintenance familiarization. COPA runs about 12-15 CPPP events around the world each year in the US, England, France, Germany, Australia and recently in Brazil. About 300 to 400 pilots attend each year. We hire some of the most experienced Cirrus instructors in the world, most with more than 2,000 hours dual given and some with over 8,000 hours dual given in a Cirrus.

MJ, it's all part of a concerted effort to improve our culture of safety. See the COPA Code of Conduct (http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CopaLiterature.aspx) for more details about what we value.

Your ideas are good ones. The need is there. The challenge is to encourage pilots to behave differently. Note the word encourage, as most Cirrus pilots have the freedom to fly badly.

Cheers
Rick

007helicopter

9th Jun 2013, 18:24

Rick

At this stage is there any more known about the Pilot in this incident, hours in type , what transition training etc?

In my early 50's I must admit it has taken me a while to get to a reasonable level on the avionics and I have invested quite a few additional hours of training to get to that point.

I imagine generally speaking it is going to a handful for your "average" pilot in his mid seventies to get truly up to speed on the whole set up.

mad_jock

9th Jun 2013, 19:02

Rick get proper data that actually means something.

Like with like.

Then maybe you will convince some of us who think that the chute is causing incidents due to pilots getting themselves into situation that they had no right to be near.

At the moment as far as I am concerned your accident rate is above that of 20-30 year auld heaps why?

Once you know that reason you can start with the chute is brilliant talk.

Pace

9th Jun 2013, 19:09

THBorchert

To me, the very, very, very low probability of even hitting someone on the ground under parachute, let alone injuring them, means that I will not be concerned with it when compared to considering my own life as being directly and immediately threatened. Because that is the situation the pilot is in when he/she pulls the chute. For him/her, in that situation, of course there is "no alternative". What else? No

I really cannot believe this statement! We do have a responsibility to people on the ground !
Parachutes have been around for a long time strapped to a pilots back! In the war the pilot bailed out of a stricken aircraft they didn't say I don't like the sound of my engine so I am out of here! Neither in that situation do I think they would have bailed out over central London ??
The Cirrus has opened up a whole new debate because we are talking about lowering a whole aircraft to the ground and not just a stricken one but a healthy aircraft and sorry but if a pilot looses a healthy aircraft on instruments he should not be there!
Better he spends money on honing his instrument flying and recovery from unusual attitudes!
While I appreciate over a built up area pulling the chute in a stricken aircraft which is going down regardless or even where the pilot is about to pass out as the that action is the better of two evils!
No one on the ground has yet been killed by a descending aircraft descending at 25 mph on top of someone but that is pure luck!
In this last incidence the police made a statement of how lucky it was that the aircraft crashed where it did! The police stated that in other areas Many could have been killed or injured!
Yet you know better ??? I predict at some point we will be discussing loss of life by such an aircraft descending into a highly populated area!
I hope it's not you as how could you live with that on your conscience especially if you had a flying aircraft at your control !
If a pilot suffered a heart attack at 2000 feet above a built up area and pulled the chute that is the lesser of two evils!
If a pilot had engine failure at 2000 feet above a built up area and pulled the chute killing people on the ground I would have him charged with manslaughter

Pace