The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[007helicopter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pace]

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

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

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

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

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

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

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

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

[Pace]

Maoraigh1

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

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

Pace

[007helicopter]

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

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

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

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

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

[abgd]

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

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

[Pace]

And we are worried about deadsticking a Cirrus

Deadstick landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wimps ?

Pace

[A and C]

Pace

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

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

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

[Pace]

A&E

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

Pace

[A and C]

Pace

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

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

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

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

[Pace]

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

A&C

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

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

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

Pace

[A and C]

Pace

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

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

[Pace]

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

A&C

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

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

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

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

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

[A and C]

Pace

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

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

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

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

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

[Pace]

A&C

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

Pace

[172driver]

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

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

[Pace]

172

Totally agree with that!

Pace

[A and C]

Pace

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

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

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

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

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