Since we have gravitated back to the chute debate, I thought I might have a go at summing up my thoughts
Inevitably, when you follow this thread, there are contributions from very experienced pilots, inexperienced pilots and the whole gambit in between. It is not surprising the more experienced pilots are those that prefer to trust to their own skills when it comes to a forced landing. They also believe all pilots should be as skilled as they are. This is understandable; most of us look at the world based on our own experiences.
Instructors, and those that regularly fly with others, have the best chance of looking at things through the eyes of others. I have always said that most “amateur” pilots are not very good at forced landings. Many don’t practice PFLs and therefore rely on the last PFLs they did as part of their two yearly review.
I think there is a very real danger arguing what other pilots should do based on your own skills. That to me suggests a certain detachment from reality.
The skill of the pilot is therefore the first element in considering whether or not to deploy the chute. It is pointless arguing pilots should be more skilled and / or better trained, because that is a different argument. It may have merit, but we have to accept we are where we are and it will take along time to change.
There is some evidence to suggest skilled pilots consider themselves more infallible than less skilled pilots. There are numerous accounts of high time, highly experienced and current pilots killing themselves in situations you would least expect. The account in this thread regarding the instructor that hit wires is a very good example.
Pilots believing they are better than they really are, or more immune from bad luck than the rest of us is the second element.
And so I believe pilots must detach themselves from their preconceived ideas. There will be those pilots who believe they will almost always do a better job without the chute and there will be those that believe the contrary.
This seems and odd situation to have reached but I suspect one of which most of us are guilty.
If we can detach ourselves from these preconceived ideas we might do a better job of assessing when we should use the chute.
As this thread has so amply illustrates there are examples where using the chute is less likely to result in the best outcome. I have said many times before Cirrus cant offer certainty where none exists. Rightly or wrongly they did not conduct an exhaustive trial into chute deployments, undoubtedly because the cost and risks would have been prohibitive. Consider for a moment the cost of developing hot seats for the military. Rightly or wrongly our knowledge of chutes has evolved, as there have been growing examples of their deployment. Cirrus cant give definitive guidance without “doing the tests”. Imagine the extent to which Cirrus would be torn to threads in court if they included a SOP which could not be supported on the basis of a comprehensive test program.
The accumulated evidence is that chute deployments work pretty well. I don’t know the actual figures but my guess is that over 90% of chute deployments have been successful. By any reckoning that is pretty good odds. Should we compare those odds with conventional forced landings? That sounds a nice idea but in fact is fraught with difficulties. Aircraft impact the ground for all sorts of reasons, including loss of control in IMC, engine failure, structural damage, pilot incapacitation to mention just a few. Chute deployments have been associated with all of these. In some cases I suspect we would all agree the chute “saved the day”. If an aileron detaches chances are none of us is going to “land” the aircraft. The difficult is therefore comparing apples with apples and not pears. However it would be interesting to compare cases of engine failure in VMC followed by a dead stick landings with and without the chute. The results of such a comparison across a wide pilot population would be interesting.
This leaves me to make the following assessment:
1. I practice forced landings, but not as often as I should. I think I am a better pilot than I really am, and in my dreams I always imagine I will “make” that small field, but when I take a reality check I realise it’s just in my dreams. My experience of flying with other pilots is that there are many I would give very good odds they wouldn’t make that small field, and I mean odds of 50:1 or better. I know, because I watch them try.
2. If I look down at L2K beach when the tide is out, its winter and deserted, I know I can land on the beach in just about any conditions you like. I also understand the risks of ending up in the water even a short distance from shore with an off shore wind blowing.
3. I sail and I know what the sea can be like off shore in certain conditions. I have read a lot about ditching and I still don’t fancy it! I like the idea of landing on water vertically.
4. I am aware that in strong winds there will be a lot of drift with the chute deployed. I am also aware that strong winds are my friend when it comes to a forced landing, but also my enemy in that it is so much easier to end up short or incorrectly aligned.
5. I know there are some circumstances in which I wouldn’t use the chute.
6. The rest of the time I am going to take a long hard look not only at what I see out of the cockpit window but what I feel in my heart. I am going to set to one side how good a pilot I think I am and then try and assess whether I really believe I can pull off a perfect forced landing. I am going to remind myself if I get it wrong in almost all conditions the impact is going to be worse than under the chute. Then I will make my final decision.