SR22 Parachute Deployment - Remarkable Video

[beaglecp]

DVIDS - Video - Pilot Safe After Ditching 253 Miles From Maui (http://www.dvidshub.net/video/388574/pilot-safe-after-ditching-253-miles-maui#.VMZA8f54rYg)

HONOLULU – The pilot of a single engine Cirrus SR-22 aircraft that ran out of fuel is safe after ditching his aircraft 253 miles northeast of Maui, Hawaii Sunday.
At approximately 4:44 p.m. the pilot was able to deploy the aircraft’s airframe parachute system and safely exit the aircraft into a life raft.
Watchstanders at the Coast Guard Joint Rescue Coordination Center Honolulu identified the cruise ship Veendam, en route to Lahaina, Maui, and coordinated the pilot’s ditch near their location.
At 5:21 p.m. the crew of the Veendam rescued the pilot. The pilot was reported to be in good condition. The plane was last observed partially submerged.
Weather conditions at the time of the rescue were seas of 9 to 12 feet and winds of 25 to 28 mph.
The Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules airplane from Air Station Barbers Point assisted the pilot during the process of ditching his aircraft and maintained communications throughout the ditching process. The Hercules crew remained on scene until the pilot was safely aboard the Veendam.
The flight originated in Tracy, California and was destined for Kahului Maui.
At 12:30 p.m. the pilot contacted the Hawaii National Guard and reported his aircraft had approximately three hours of fuel remaining and he would be ditching 230 miles north east of Maui.

[9 lives]

Very cool video, thanks for the link!

I'm not usually a "Parachute on plane" proponent, but I see value here. It did seem to be a problem that the wind dragged the 'chute after splashdown, and overturned the plane. It probably would have floated upright longer, if it had been possible to jettison the 'chute right away.

But, it worked!

[ChrisVJ]

Something odd here. suspected mis-reporting.

Cruise speed 180 knots

Three hours fuel

253 miles from land.

Wind speed 25 to 28 mph.

By those figures he should have made it easily.

[PA28181]

According to comments on FB it was a fuel valve problem rather than failure to have enough for flight.

As for the landing there is some definite merit in arriving vertically but that chute drag would have sunk the aircraft quicker if it dragged towards the open door, so it looks like a chute jettison feature is needed after splashdown.

[Andrewgr2]

The 20 seconds of steep nose down attitude between parachute deployment and the plane settling into a reasonably level attitude must have been seriously worrying for the pilot. If deployed at a lower level that could easily have resulted in a nose first impact...

[riverrock83]

My memory was that you didn't break your back in a BRS deployed SR-22 because a good proportion of the landing impact is absorbed by the under-carriage.
Obviously that isn't going to happen on water - so the impact may be harder than when landing on land.
So congrats to the pilot for coming out of it with no injuries!

I'm surprised they were able to travel for 4hrs 15min and still be 35min away from a ship, but then it is a very big ocean!

[Tarq57]

That's some seriously nice camera work from the operator on board the Herc.

[007helicopter]

Was a problem on a valve on the ferry tank, the Pilot was in comms with base via a sat phone for a few hours while they structured a plan in conjunction with coast guard and during that time tried to resolve the valve problem.

Unable to fix diverted close to a cruise ship for the chute pull.

The pilot was apparently in the water for 40 minutes before rescue and I guess on a North Atlantic crossing that could be fatal.

A good outcome under the circumstances

[007helicopter]

Obviously that isn't going to happen on water - so the impact may be harder than when landing on land.

It may be harder but the breaking back thing is a bit of a myth, I believe one guy did suffer a broken bone in the Hudson River, was able to swim ashore, and made a complete recovery, most on water since have been completely without injury.

Some seem to float a while, this one went down very quick and shows the importance of getting out damn quick

[Pace]

The question would be whether he would have been better landing into wind and stalling in or pulling the chute?

Ok it worked out but I agree for a long time the aircraft was very nose down descending nose down at a high rate and only levelled fairly late into the descent.

Lucky landing ????

[007helicopter]

Ok it worked out but I agree for a long time the aircraft was very nose down descending nose down at a high rate

Unusually long time in nose down position, almost 20 seconds compared to normally I believe around 7 or 8 seconds, this is a G5 Model with a higher gross weight and bigger chute than previous Cirrus and may have been over gross weight with additional ferry tanks (but I do not know that and assume had burnt a lot of that fuel) or C&G may have been out.

My personal ditching strategy will be the chute but I know a lot of traditional ditching's are very survivable.

[9 lives]

That's some seriously nice camera work from the operator on board the Herc.

Certainly credit to the operator, but I think you'll find these cameras are extremely automated, with the FLIR doing the tracking, I've used one before in a Police application. But, excellent video!

[Jonzarno]

Here is the text of a press release from The Flight Academy which is the company operating the flight:

QUOTE
The safety of the Cirrus SR22 aircraft was demonstrated again yesterday when our pilot, Lue Morton, successfully deployed the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System over the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Morton was recovered from the ocean without injury.

Mr. Morton elected to deploy the parachute after several hours of unsuccessful troubleshooting of a fuel system malfunction. Although the aircraft had adequate reserves for the flight, and fuel remaining at the time of the parachute deployment, the remaining fuel was unable to reach the engine for unknown reasons.

The pilot was in communication with the Coast Guard, our office, and aircraft mechanics while attempting to resolve the issues.

The US Coast Guard monitored the aircraft as it flew and observed the parachute deployment, touchdown, and Mr. Morton's recovery by the Holland America cruise ship Veendam.

Our heartfelt gratitude goes to the US Coast Guard for their tireless efforts and to the crew of the Veendam for a speedy retrieval of Mr. Morton from the water.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will lead the investigation into the cause of the accident. Further questions should be directed to the NTSB.

END QUOTE

[fkerr]

Video: Watch: Plane deploys parachute for emergency landing in Hawaii ocean - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/hawaii/11369919/Watch-Plane-deploys-parachute-for-emergency-landing-in-Hawaii-ocean.html)

Never knew there was such a system.

[A and C]

The nose down attitude of the aircraft just after chute deployment is an intended part of the deployment sequence, I am told that this to keep the occupants of the aircraft firmly against the seat harness during the inital declaration.

About ten seconds after full parachute deployment two explosive line cutters fire to put the aircraft in a more normal attitude.

[ETOPS]

And in a slightly odd coincidence...

Another aircraft - a C172 - ditched off O'ahu only a couple of hours later on the same day :eek:

ASN Aircraft incident 25-JAN-2015 Cessna 172N Skyhawk N422BP (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=173281)

[9 lives]

About ten seconds after full parachute deplyment two explosive line cutters fire to put the aircraft in a more normal attitude.

Excellent design thinking. It seems to me that another set of these explosive cutters to cut the parachute harness entirely away after the G of contact with the surface would be a good idea too....

[worldpilot]

Awesome. This is why I fly the Cirrus. The ballistic parachute is a viable option of flight safety that I won't want to miss.

[9 lives]

The ballistic parachute is a viable option of flight safety that I won't want to miss.

If I were regularly crossing very large expanses of rough ocean, or totally unlandable terrain in a single engined wheel plane, I would probably share this view. The success of the parachute use in this event is obvious, though I am not convinced that the aircraft could not have been equally successfully ditched, particularly considering the unstable aircraft position immediately following splashdown.

Personally though, after 7000 hours of single engine flying over 40 years, I have never once wished I'd had a parachute at all (even for the times I was required to wear one). I'm quite happy to have saved the cost and weight of an "installed parachute" for all those flights, by choosing to not fly a parachute configured aircraft. I know that there are many pilots who consider the cost and weight of the parachute worth it, and they do not complain about those costs, and good on them. But for the many pilots who struggle with the cost of flying, I don't believe that a parachute adds safety or piece of mind in proportion to it's cost. But that's a personal opinion.

Knowing that the body's "limits" for deceleration are 45G forward, and 15G downward, I would still plan a "fly on" crash, rather than "drop on", as long as I had an open, near horizontal area - water included.

[Rod1]

The 4 people in the 172 who ditched on the same day in a similar location are fine. The 172 had no ballistic parachute. Do people really think it was a good idea to use the parachute in this case? I am not convinced.

Rod1

[mm_flynn]

Do people really think it was a good idea to use the parachute in this case? I am not convinced.


I think in this particular situation it probably was '6 of one half a dozen of the other'. It shows how gentle a 25 knot splash down speed is, no danger of submarining, rolling over, etc. with the upside of the ability to get out above the water and inflate the life raft on the wing.

The ditching speed of a 172 will be about 50 knots (so into wind the same gentle arrival). However, on a day with only 10 knots of wind, the sr22 will splash down and not be towed into the water by the chute (hence a virtual certainty of stepping into the raft dry), whereas the non-parachute plane will be sliding into the water with 2.5 times the energy, which may be sufficient to risk submarining, flipping on contact, or stoving in the windshield and flooding. This is not to say these always happen, but there is certainly a reasonable frequency for people who have ditched to need to extract themselves from an upside down, or water filled cockpit.

Having watched the video, the only reasons I wouldn't prefer to parachute in would be, 1 - an issue at low level so I couldn't count on being deployed into a level attitude, 2 - ditching in winds over 30 knots where you are going slower flying than floating. I am struggling to see the significant downside on a low wind day. If it is blowing 30-40 on the ground, then I can buy the very significant downside of not comming to a stop when you ditch, but being dragged around.

[Jonzarno]

whereas the non-parachute plane will be sliding into the water with 2.5 times the energy

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's actually more like nine times the energy (ca 17 KTS under the chute vs ca 50 KTS for the ditching)

As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.

A couple more points on the dynamics of this incident:

That 28 knot wind is most probably in the same direction as the waves are moving so, if you land into the wind you are likely to impact the face of a 6 - 8 ft wave that is being blown towards you.

If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)

In addition, there are also mostly full ferry tanks in the plane (the cause of the problem was that the fuel couldn't get from the ferry tanks to the engine) and there is a risk that they might shift forward in a horizontal impact.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There was a very large sea running with high winds. Ditching a fixed gear airplane in these conditions would be much more difficult than the same process on a calm day with no swell.

To me this is one of the most cut and dried examples of the value of the airframe parachute.

There seems to be a few posters that always rubbish the concept of the airframe parachute in general and the Cirrus in particular, no matter what the circumstances. The pilot of this aircraft undid his seat belt and stepped out of the aircraft after it landed under the parachute, something that 70 or so other Cirrus pilots and passengers were able to do after successful parachute deployments.

I am personally struggling to see the downside here...

[mm_flynn]

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's actually more like nine times the energy (ca 17 KTS under the chute vs ca 50 KTS for the ditching)

As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.I know, that’s why I used 25 knots vs 40 knots

The landing we observed was at 25knts (the wind was 25-28 so I used the lower number)

A C172 ditching in low wind (10 knots in my example) would be a landing at 40 knots (allowing for 10 knot reduction by landing into wind)

(40/25)^2 = 2.5 which is the times the energy when ditching a non-parachute aircraft in benign conditions vs the conditions in which this aircraft ditched. Hence, my peference to be coming down on a chute in anything other than winds over 30 knots (as the SR22 would probably be closer to 60 knots at touchdown)

[Jonzarno]

MMF

Sorry, I misread your post and you posted this while I was editing my post.

I see your point although the landing looked quite vertical with respect to the moving sea.

[9 lives]

I am personally struggling to see the downside here...

If the owner/pilot is content with the considerable extra cost and weight of the airframe parachute system, and, the presence of that system does not cause over confidence, and resulting poor decision making ('cause the 'chute is there, just in case), than there probably is little downside.

But, I think that both of those factors have some bearing on the choice to acquire/operate that system or not....

[felixflyer]

The chute on the Cirrus has once again proved it's worth. I don't know why people do not think it a great concept in a fantastic aircraft. The Cirrus seems to attract a certain amount of flak compared to other similar aircraft.

I flew the Cirrus for a while and loved having it at my disposal. It doesn't suit my type of flying anymore as I have gone right back to grass roots but I still consider it a great machine for the type of flying it is built for.

Regarding the weight and extra cost of the system, I could understand this argument if you were thinking of retro fitting a chute in a PA28 or something. The Cirrus however is built around this system and still gives good performance. It is what it is and comes with a chute. I f you are worried about the extra cost then you don't buy a SR20/SR22, simples. If you want the added safety then you do.

When I was doing my Cirrus conversion I had conversations with the instructors about where and when it would be a good idea to pull the handle. I am sure every pilot with this system at their disposal has their own set of circumstances in mind. It is not a quick fix get out of trouble system, it is likely to write off the aircraft and I don't know any Cirrus pilots that think of it that way.


In regards to this incident I would have made the same decision. . The Cirrus had one person on board, pulling the chute will give you time to try and sort out the raft and get the canopy cracked open so you can be out as soon as it hits the water. It will also give a clear indication from a distance that you are going down and alert any passing traffic to come to your assistance. There is also the issue of waves and swell. You do not want to end up straight under the water, especially with lots of fuel on board, much better to pancake onto the surface ready to jump out and grab the raft. Add to this the fact that the aircraft is very likely to not be recovered when ditching at sea, so writing it off is not a worry, I wouldn't hesitate but to pull the chute.

If it had been over ground with flat areas or even still water I would elect to land under control.

[PA28181]

If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)

Would you be worried about operating outside the POH in those circumstances?

As for the question of whether to use the chute for a ditching or not. I read all the horrors about landing on water as the landing gear is designed to collapse to absorb the energy and landing on water can result in back injury.

After watching the video I'd take the chute every time.

[Jonzarno]

Not from a regulatory compliance point of view, but I would be very scared of catching a wingtip in one of those swells and cartwheeling in at 60 KTS.

IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?

As for landing on water causing back injury, there is one case of a pilot who pulled over water at low level who did hurt his back but was still able to exit the aircraft and swim, he made a full recovery. There has been no other injury in any other water landing under CAPS including this one.

[9 lives]

I would be very scared of catching a wingtip in one of those swells and cartwheeling in at 60 KTS.

IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?

Indeed, the parachute was a good idea in this case. I did say:

If I were regularly crossing very large expanses of rough ocean, or totally unlandable terrain in a single engined wheel plane, I would probably share this view. The success of the parachute use in this event is obvious

That said, though it worked, I'm not convinced that this type of aircraft was intended to be regularly operated over large expanses of rough ocean.

Certainly, a safety feature is just that, and a good thing, if you feel it is cost effective, and use it correctly. A sound combination of safety equipment, and the training to fly safely in general, and use the safety equipment you have appropriately is ideal, and an airframe parachute may be a part of that. But, equal safety can be achieved without it too, if other factors affecting a safe return to earth are well managed.

[PA28181]

It's a real shame that the fuel system on the aircraft wasn't as reliable as the recovery system was..................

[9 lives]

Though I have no particular knowledge of this event, ferry fuel systems in general can be difficult, and this is not the first time an aircraft has taken unuseable ferry fuel into a ditching. When I have ferried with extra tanks, I have been aware of the critcality of vents working as intended, because for a gravity feed tank, if the vent air cannot get it, the fuel won't get out. Lots of attention is paid to the supply line, but vent lines are an afterthought.

My first time ever flying a Twin Otter was an hour on my own in right seat shortly after takeoff, while my captain was in the back disassembling the venting system to clear a vent line, so we could use that fuel. He did succeed, others have not. Had he not, we would have had an overgross landing, though likely on a runway, as opposed to the ocean.

For that reason, I'm a real fan of TurtlePac bladder tanks, as venting is not required. The problem is that old guidance material still seems to favour rigid tanks, so that's what are often used, and venting becomes a critical consideration.

[Jonzarno]

It's a real shame that the fuel system on the aircraft wasn't as reliable as the recovery system was..................

AIUI the problem arose when a valve from the supplementary ferry tanks failed leaving the pilot with only the fuel in the standard wing tanks.

Step Turn: you posted as I was typing this: very interesting post!

[thborchert]

If I read the reports correctly, at least one of the occupants of the Cessna was carried out of the SAR helo on a stretcher. Quite a different being "fine" than what has been reported of the chutist.

[NW_Pilot]

If he had time for a video selfie! Where is the video of the alleged failed fuel valve? Pilot on Plane Escape: A Lot of Things Could Have Gone Wrong Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pilot-plane-escape-lot-things-wrong-28572458) Professional Ferry Pilots Want to Know as well as the FAA and NTSB!

[Pace]

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's actually more like nine times the energy (ca 17 KTS under the chute vs ca 50 KTS for the ditching)

As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.

A couple more points on the dynamics of this incident:

That 28 knot wind is most probably in the same direction as the waves are moving so, if you land into the wind you are likely to impact the face of a 6 - 8 ft wave that is being blown towards you.

If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)

In addition, there are also mostly full ferry tanks in the plane (the cause of the problem was that the fuel couldn't get from the ferry tanks to the engine) and there is a risk that they might shift forward in a horizontal impact.

J

Your maths is not correct (( to be correct you would have to assume that liquid acts in the same way as air so a 25kt pocket of air would blend with and match a 25 kt pocket of water also moving at 25 its which is not the case.

Yes I too am committed to the idea of the chute but question it as being a answer to all ills.

I think this guy was very lucky that the air craft became horizontal under the chute before impacting the water as a large portion of the decent was nose first with a high descent rate and had the aircraft not taken up its designed profile the pilot may well have regretted his decision to pull or not been in a position to regret anything ((

Pace

[Jonzarno]

Pace

The CAPS system worked pretty much as designed although the initial extraction actually appears to have been a bit slower than it should have been.

Analysis of the coastguard video has indicated that the deployment was at about 5500 feet and that the aircraft was level under the chute having lost just over 400 ft. That is normal.

The initial nose down attitude is deliberate so that the initial deceleration is taken by the seat belts. Once that has happened the explosive line cutters fire on the rear risers allowing the aircraft to assume the horizontal attitude.

This was a normal successful deployment.

As regards my maths, I didn't say the waves were moving at any particular speed, just that they are likely to be moving in a similar direction to the wind and thus, if you try to ditch into the wind, you are likely to be moving roughly into the face of the waves rather than parallel to them.

[Mariner9]

The initial nose down attitude is deliberate so that the initial deceleration is taken by the seat belts.

It was also designed that way in order to minimise the nose swinging up under the initial deceleration.

The POH says the aircraft should level around 8 seconds after chute deployment, and the video suggests it worked as advertised.

[007helicopter]

There is no doubt ditching in any conditions is going to be a high risk situation, I think the Pilot here did have to a degree a lucky outcome considering the wind and wave's.

Had a the plane been engulfed by a wave or a wing dug in sooner it could have been a whole different ugly outcome.

The big learning point for me from this would be to be getting out of that plane top priority and being fully prepared for that and any passengers properly briefed.

It was pretty shocking how quickly it went down.

[007helicopter]

The POH says the aircraft should level around 8 seconds after chute deployment, and the video suggests it worked as advertised

I disagree here and watching again would say 20 seconds before properly level and I think not as advertised.

Several factors, this was a new G5 that has a bigger chute due to extra payload, also not sure if C&G effected anything with extra ferry tanks, also looked as if plane was slowed down quite substantially that may effect the energy to inflate the chute.

While a great outcome I would Guess Cirrus / BRS will want to understand why not fully level sooner.

On the massive plus side No person has died when the CAPS system deployed above 1000 feet above ground and below Vne airspeed of 200 knots indicated.

[mad_jock]

As soon as the word ferry is mentioned forget anything the OEM has said about both performance and how its should work.

its CofG will be way out, its weight will be way out.

Personally anything that has been ferried I would be extremely suspect of stress strain history.

Once watched a C172 take off with the whole of the rear cabin full of fuel for a trans atlantic. Plus raft and all the rest of the gubbins.

Used the whole length of a 2000m runway at sea level and 10degs C and then limped into the air and climbed away at 50-100ft rate of climb.

[9 lives]

A responsible ferry pilot may have a higher gross weight in some circumstances, but will have a C of G where it should be. It will probably be aft, as ferry tank will be burned during the flight to move the C of G back toward forward, but I very much doubt they would fly out of limits approved by the authority for that flight.

Some aircraft, including many 172's. are permitted to fly at 130% of their gross weight for ferry, with specified restrictions. When doing so, pilots tend to use lots more runway voluntarily.

[mad_jock]

A responsible ferry pilot

That is the problem

then you get idiots like.

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/533492-do-not-use-robert-weaver-ferry-pilot.html

[Jonzarno]

007

You're right: the deployment was slower than it should have been and I'm sure Cirrus will be looking at that. That said, it still made it to horizontal under the chute in just over 400 feet of altitude loss.

The aircraft was almost certainly over max weight and will have had a permit for that. The CG question is not so straightforward as the problem with the ferry tank will have meant that the pilot was not draining it as he flew to the rescue ship. I don't know whether that would have had any influence on the CG at the time of the deployment or if it would have made a difference to the chute extraction.

FWIW I know the company doing the ferry flight quite well: they are extremely professional about everything they do and are also a leading Cirrus training company. In fact I did my own IR with them. :)

[007helicopter]

FWIW I know the company doing the ferry flight quite well: they are extremely professional about everything they do and are also a leading Cirrus training company. In fact I did my own IR with them.

Jon I agree, no need not to mention them as the Flight Academy are a leading Cirrus training organisation and Ferry company - the principal owners involved with Cirrus from Day One.

Irrelevant but I did 2 ferries with them as P2 and P1 under instruction from Rochester UK to New York in an SR22 NA and a SR22 Turbo to Jordan, both involved long sea crossings but slightly different temperatures.


DO NOT use Robert Weaver as a ferry pilot

MJ I can assure you this was no Robert Weaver type wannabe ferry.

[mad_jock]

yep but if an aircraft has been ferried in its history unless you know the ferry company you don't have a clue what the airframe has been through.

[007helicopter]

MJ I do not know about other Air frames but as far as Cirrus are concerned the transatlantic ferry's need no modification and have enough range for the Iceland & Greenland Route, it is just the Australian ones as far as I know that need extra tanks and while substantially over gross weight I have never heard of any opinion it would effect the Air frame I also believe Cirrus support this opinion.

This particular ferry appears to be scuppered by a basic valve failure, I have no idea if they need to use specific approved valves or can literally pick any industrial valve of the shelf, pictures I have seen of Ferry tank configuration in the past do look like fairly random bits of kit plumbed in.

[Jonzarno]

Yes, that's right. When my SR22 was ferried over from the U.S. it did not need a ferry tank.

[mad_jock]

Its most likely as said that the vent valve to allow air in so the fuel can come out either wasn't open or wasn't working.

The line into the main fuel system isn't very technical for a gravity feed if you have a fuel sector in the cockpit. Some just shut one of the tank lines with a pair of mole grips then connect with a male to male brass tube connector and when the ferry tank is finished swap to the other tank and then connect it back in and remove the mole grips. The ferry tank is opened and closed with a brass rotary gate valve. Or they use a brass t piece and install another valve in the main tank line.


Personally i would have stabbed the top of the ferry tank with my survival knife and made a small hole.

I also would have started using it just after departure for quite a while, so I had a chance to return to the point of departure if there was a problem with it.

So as far as i am concerned the cap again has saved the life of someone lacking in basic airmanship putting an aircraft into a situation it should never have been in.

Hurray for cirrus protecting idiots from themselves.

[EclipseN99XG]

Mad Jock,
If things really happened the way you are alleging then, you might be right.
If not, you are insulting an innocent good pilot. So far this is speculation. And thank God he is alive! I would hate to die because my engines stall for some catastrophic unrecoverable event, and be called by you "an idiot."

[worldpilot]

Never mind the many IMPOSTERs here.

I wonder how the inquiry into this incident would be handled, now that the aircraft is not retrievable from the ocean. As such, there is no way to really determine that a "Valve INOP" failure was the only cause of this outcome.

WP

[Jonzarno]

WP

I don't have any specific information that is not already in the public domain, but the fact that the pilot spent several hours troubleshooting the problem including talking on the sat phone to his company, Cirrus and I believe the ferry tank makers suggests that there is quite a good chance that we will find out what happened.

Also, as we know, the pilot had a camera with him and I suspect (but don't know for sure) that there will probably be a at least a photographic record of those parts of the ferry tank system that are visible.

As I said in an earlier post, the ferry company is a highly competent and reputable organisation and I am quite sure that the problem will have been documented as fully as possible.

[mad_jock]

Give me one good reason why you would not use the ferry tank fuel before the in wing normal supply first while you were still in range of a divert on only the main tanks in case of issues with the ferry tanks?.

It would be very doubtfull I would do that in castostrophic equipment failure (and the autopilot failing doesn't come under that heading). On the other hand putting yourself in a situation with no escape options you would be called an idiot.

There nothing much they can do now the aircraft has gone. They might do some fuel calcs and work out that if he had used the ferry tank first then he would have had discovered the issue within divert range on main tanks. Then a big faa stamp in his log book saying ran out of fuel.

Or they will just take a pilot report and do nothing.

[worldpilot]

Apparently, as reported, there was 25 gallons of fuel left before ditching into the ocean.

Where was this amount of fuel? In the main tanks or in the AUX tanks?

I won't fly a Cirrus with the wing tanks empty though. So, presumably, the 25 gallons were in the wing tanks, with 12.5 gallons each.

Now, does it mean that the AUX tank was empty?

The distance from KTCY to PHOG is approx. 2075nm straight line flight, and with an average speed of 180kts and 15-16 gals per hour fuel consumption, it would take about 11-12 hours of flight, and approx. 200 gallons of fuel, to reach PHOG.

Assuming that he had 232 gallons of fuel on board, at an empty weight of 2340 lbs, the take off max. weight would be approx. 3732 lbs, which is 132 lbs above the max. takeoff weight of 3600 lbs.

If I'm going to fly that distance, I would first use the fuel from the AUX tanks, which actually makes better sense to me.

I mean, the story isn't adding up though. Let's see what FAA perspectives would narrate.

WP

[mad_jock]

Whats the capacity of the main tanks?

The way i read it the fuel was in the ferry tank and couldn't be used. And the mains empty.

[worldpilot]

Whats the capacity of the main tanks?
46 gals on each wing side (92 gallons total usable fuel).

At, let's say, 180kts and 16 gallons per hour fuel consumption, the max endurance is 5.5hrs of flight.

The plane ditched into the ocean at 253nm to PHOG.

The way i read it the fuel was in the ferry tank and couldn't be used. And the mains empty. Well, that can't be the case. The fuel in the wing tanks must have been empty already, at least 4-5 hours before ditching into the ocean.

WP

[worldpilot]

UPDATE: Pilot Safe After Ditching Plane NE of Maui | Maui Now (http://mauinow.com/2015/01/25/single-engine-plane-preparing-to-ditch-off-maui/)

Original Post
The Coast Guard responded to a distress call from a single-engine aircraft running out of fuel approximately 975 miles north of Hawai‘i Island today.

The pilot contacted the Hawai‘i National Guard at 12:30 p.m., reporting that his aircraft had approximately three hours of fuel remaining and he would be ditching the plane 230 miles northeast of Maui.

The Coast Guard launched crews aboard an HC-130 Hercules airplane and an MH-65 Dolphin helicopter from Air Station Barbers Point.

As of 2:35 p.m. today, the aircraft was 529 miles northeast of Hawai‘i Island.

The Hercules was expected to rendezvous with the plane around 3:20 p.m.

The aircraft is reported as a single engine Cirrus SR-22 with one person aboard.

If this information is correct, the pilot was flying this aircraft at over 200kts per hour, which is quite a high speed for an SR22, flying the east-to-west direction with approx. headwinds of 20-30kts.:ugh:

Was the aircraft being overstressed? :=

The max. Cruise speed is 183kts.

WP

[NW_Pilot]

I still think that the pilot inadvertently turned the system on and/or left the system to long on and vented the fuel over board.

[NW_Pilot]

worldpilot (http://www.pprune.org/members/153073-worldpilot), when over gross it it less than that!

[mad_jock]

I would suspect that is statute miles they are using not Nautical miles.

So times by 0.87 and see if it makes more sense.

But after looking a bit more into it.


There is definitely a smell about this one.

[007helicopter]

I stand to be corrected but am reasonably certain these ferry tanks would refill the wing tanks and not direct to feed the engine.

Therefore you would use fuel in the wings evenly and then keep topping them off rather than use the ferry tank first and then the wing.

I suspect a mechanical failure in this system that could not be fixed airborne rather than any idiot cirrus pilot or cowboy ferry company theory.

[Mariner9]

Hurray for cirrus protecting idiots from themselves.

Indeed. I've just started flying the SR20, and should I end up in a situation where I pull the chute, I will nice to know that I am an alive idiot rather than a dead idiot.

[mad_jock]

Collapsible Aircraft Ferry Tanks - Turtlepac (http://www.turtlepac.com/products/collapsible-aircraft-ferry-tanks.html)

That's the type I have seen.


Why on earth would you want to push fuel in the wrong direction up a fuel line when it can go straight to the engine? Your doubling if not tripling the number of things that go wrong.

Apart from which there is usually baffle flaps in the tank to stop sloshing to the wing tips.

The only time you might have issues is if there is a return fuel line from the engine with injected engines to the fuel tank.

Then you would use one tank until it was quarter empty then use the ferry tank until it was 3/4 full again and repeat. But this has a huge gotcha in that if you forget to swap back to the main tank to empty it down again the fuel pump is a high volume constant pressure pump and it will vent vast quantities of fuel over the side through the tank vent in minutes if you leave it to over fill the wing tank.

Mariner if you fly it like any other aircraft without a chute, and don't alter your flight profiles or decisions because you have the chute, use the training which is available to you through the cirrus training schemes I am pretty certain you will never require to use it.

Then you will be an alive none idiot.

[PA28181]

Having read/heard various arguments about whether to pull or not. I think it really is dependant on the circumstances. For instance doing circuits for conversion and engine quits, would you pull late downwind/1.5nm final? (I don't know the minimum height for this to work) Flying over a densly populated area with nowhere flat to drop in safely, or over a huge flat plain of savannha. Or even an insterstate in Arizona, effectively an infinite runway with little traffic.

I would certainly pull the chute over water having seen the video but. In other circumstances once you have pulled, all control is totally lost, and needs careful/rational and, positive thinking, during a life threatening period in your life,if it happens.

[worldpilot]

I stand to be corrected but am reasonably certain these ferry tanks would refill the wing tanks and not direct to feed the engine.

Therefore you would use fuel in the wings evenly and then keep topping them off rather than use the ferry tank first and then the wing.That must not be the case though.

I would expect that fuel is drained from the tank that is currently selected via the installed valve, respectively. SO, to maintain and also avoid shifting of center of gravity, I would start by draining fuel from the ferry tank.

I suspect a mechanical failure in this system that could not be fixed airborne rather than any idiot cirrus pilot or cowboy ferry company theory.It doesn't really make sense using such vocabulary and it is a cynic attitude, anyway. There is no idiot cirrus pilot nor a cowboy ferry company.

WP

[mad_jock]

the pull option has been debated to death on here.

And to be honest myself and the others that regularly have a go at the disciple's of cirrus don't actually have a problem with the chute system.

We do though have a problem with the seemingly high number of chute pulls caused due to incompetent idiots putting themselves and others in situations which they should never have been near anyway.

Ferrying an aircraft is a dangerous game, and to be honest I really don't care what an individual does to risk their own life.

But to hold someone up as an example of airmanship because they pulled a handle in the roof is just madness.

This incident will be a huge error chain more than likely starting days before the flight. And more than likely it won't just be one person that screwed up.

The airmanship is the error chain being broken before the incident and the flight becoming a none event never to be heard of. And nobody will sing the praises of the pilot that told his boss to go and travel sexually because something wasn't right.

[Pace]

Like MJ and coming into flying when it was a luxury being able to artificially put a VOR on your track it bothers me slightly when we rely too much on the big screen displays and pilot aids here there and everywhere.

It is great when backed up by solid pilot skills and where th pilot can quite happily hand fly in IMC and have a great sense of spatial awareness allowing a lot of mental capacity to handle whatever goes wrong then the autopilot becomes a luxury not a nessessity.

it bothers me when I see chute pulls for failed IAS or failure in IMC to hand fly a simple missed approach!
The standard fit chute pull will always attract attention as it flies in the face of conventional training.

To me it is a great extra safety addition and I would like to see all manufacturers offering the chute as standard.

for me it is a bit like the second engine in a twin! it is an extra safety device at your fingertips which when used with the right skills and judgement can add a lot to flight safety.

when the chute or other pilot aids are used to cover up pilot inability then we need to worry.

This guy was a ferry pilot and I take my hat off to those who ferry single engine aircraft long distance they have more guts than I have. I have ferried high level in jets across the North Atlantic and take my hat off to those poor guys creeping along over vast stretches of water in the worst weather way below.

I think its jumping the gun somewhat to point the finger at this pilot till we know the facts. We all make mistakes some are more costly than others but I don't think we can classify him as a poorly experienced PPL flying out of his capability and relying on systems and chutes.

He probably made the right call pulling the chute ( I am not so sure it would have been the right call had he been at 1300 feet ASL) why he got into a situation requiring that pull is another matter and at this stage only he knows in his heart whether it was his own cock up which caused that situation and even if it was we all cock up now and again but some we get away with to be put away as a lesson or experience and known by no one but us ! Others sadly are far more costly

Pace

[9 lives]

Why on earth would you want to push fuel in the wrong direction up a fuel line when it can go straight to the engine?

Ferry fuel systems run the ragged edge of "should be approved", but there is no formal design requirement. to approve to. There is written guidance material though, which I use when evaluating these systems for flight permit acceptance. Even those documents are flawed, in my opinion, so I try to take the best from all. I am a really big Turtle Pac fan, and evaluated these systems many times.

It is very preferable to not have ferry fuel take a short cut to the engine. Whenever possible, it is flowed into the vent space of a fuel tank. By doing this, it is assured that any air bubbles trapped in the ferry fuel will release into the tank vent space, rather than be forced down a fuel line into the engine(s). And as ferry tanks typically do not have sumps, any water or contamination can be handled by the tank's sump, and sump drain system, rather than bypassing it to the engine, and causing a fuel flow interruption.

Experienced ferry pilots and organizations know all this, which is one of the very good reason to ferry aircraft with competent crews. Things still go wrong, and this is certainly not the first aircraft to splash, carrying unusable ferry fuel into the ocean with it. All we can do is our best...

Honestly, if I had to make a forced landing in the open ocean, and I had a huge ship which was expecting me, and co-operating in my recovery in advance of my landing, I'd be asking for a for a turn, and land/ditch in the lee. See this video, 2:30 in....

Mdjjx2Cl9ao

[NW_Pilot]

Photo's of a Skyview Tank System. (http://www.stevenrhine.com/?p=550)

[Amblikai]

To ask a potentially daft question, why do we ferry light aircraft long distances by air? Surely it's cheaper/easier/safer to de-rig and put it in a shipping container for sea freight?

I read somewhere that when you buy "scottish smoked salmon" in Scotland, the chances are it was caught in Scotland, shipped to China to be smoked and shipped back to Scotland to sell as it's cheaper than just smoking it in Scotland!

[mad_jock]

Nah there is a big smoking factory in Dingwall.

I used to take 2 full artic trailers in and out the place every day for 3 weeks as temp job.

[photograph deleted as it is larger than 800 x 800]

Oh joy an unbonded lump of uninsulated metal which are mounted on a bit of wood, with fuel going through it.