Silly question...Why no parachutes?

[Robbo0885]

I was telling a friend all about my flying coming up for the weekend (as I tend to...lol) and she asked if I wear a parachute. i don't, and she asked why, and I couldn't think of a satisfactory answer. I hadn't thought about it til now, half way through my PPL. But when i did think about it, I used to do flying with the Air Cadets, and we always wore parachutes, whether gliding or powered flying. And, i used to do a bit of gliding up at Deeside gliding club by Aboyne, and i'm fairly sure I always got a parachute then too. So, why no parachutes? Does the majority of PPLers out there also not wear them, or is it just my school? i have seen people wearing a kind floatation thing around their necks when flying out over water, but never seen anyone at my school wearing a parachute.

[172driver]

The short answer is that a parachute wouldn't help you in the majority of accidents, as they tend to happen in the take-off or landing phase. There are very few accidents during the en-route phase of a flight, where you would be high enough to deploy the chute.

[hobbit1983]

I think the general rule in GA is that they're worn for aeros/testflying only.

[mm_flynn]

I was telling a friend all about my flying coming up for the weekend (as I tend to...lol) and she asked if I wear a parachute. i don't, and she asked why, and I couldn't think of a satisfactory answer. I hadn't thought about it til now, half way through my PPL. But when i did think about it, I used to do flying with the Air Cadets, and we always wore parachutes, whether gliding or powered flying. And, i used to do a bit of gliding up at Deeside gliding club by Aboyne, and i'm fairly sure I always got a parachute then too. So, why no parachutes? Does the majority of PPLers out there also not wear them, or is it just my school? i have seen people wearing a kind floatation thing around their necks when flying out over water, but never seen anyone at my school wearing a parachute.
There are a number of practical reasons.
1 - For most Spam cans it would be very hard work to get out of the plane in the air with rear trailing doors
2 - Most fatal accidents are 'sudden' (stall/Spin, CFIT, spatial disorientation) and you would be a hole in the ground before you realised it was time to jump.
3 - Mid-airs and other in-flight failure is rare (particularly vs gliders circling in close proximity to other gliders)
4 - The seats are not designed for wearing chutes
5 - Unlike the military, civilian operations have nor real possibility of being shot down ;)
Aerobatic aircraft are more likely to be operated at the limits of control and to have a canopy exit so you probably have more chance of getting in an unrecoverable attitude and more chance of getting out of the aircraft, hence the use of parachutes.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

It surely depends on what you are flying and the risk factor involved. Parachutes are regularly worn for aerobatics, fast jet flying (well ok, Jet Provost!) display flying and para dropping. It's a matter of personal choice, and similar to wearing a hard helmet and flying suit etc

I'm not sure that A-B flying in a C150 or PA28 carries a high risk, and in any event, you'd find it difficult to exit most GA cabin types if you needed to bale out in a hurry from 1500ft. Hordes of abandoned PA28s dropping out of the sky when the engine has stopped would really worry the insurance conmen and give them even more reason to increase the premiums!

Given the choice, I'd rather not wear a parachute unless I was flying an aircraft that could be abandoned easily, and even then, It would have to be a REAL life threatening situation (Fire, wing off etc) to get me to jump out.
I do wear a parachute in some types when I fly air displays, always in a fast jet but when para dropping, I choose not to sit on a parachute all day, even when one is provided.:O

Most fatal accidents are 'sudden' (stall/Spin, CFIT, spatial disorientation) and you would be a hole in the ground before you realised it was time to jump.

I wonder if the poor guy who spun in from a great height in a Slingsby over Suffolk would agree?.....and i know of at least one pilot who has succesfully abandoned a Pitts Special at quite a low level after an irrecoverable spin developed. Even with a serviceable ejection seat system, a Strikemaster spun in from 15000ft and the pilot did not eject until it was too late for the seat to operate within its design parameters........!:sad:

[tigerbatics]

Irrecoverable spin in a Pitts ? I think not. A non-recovered spin, obviously if he got out by 'chute.

In very many years of aerobatic flying I have never worn a parachute and I never will. They are not, in my opinion, the safety aid they are made out to be and have some serious drawbacks. But that is just my view and I know many others who disagree and wear one for aeros all the time.

But like the 'bone dome' I wonder if it is an image thing rather than a safety feature. A pose aid perhaps.

[hobbit1983]

Tiger,

Surely the risk of structural failure/damage is much greater in aeros than your average other GA flight - and therefore parachutes are probably a good idea for that reason alone, apart from spins.

I'm intrigued however, are the serious drawbacks in your opinion the problems in getting out the aircraft, or something else?

[eharding]

Tigerbatics presumably places his trust in his rubber heels and a kevlar skull. Most of the rest of us don't. Eddie Goggins, the pilot who survived the collision in Malta last year, baling out at very low level, posted an informed article on his experience with bone-domes and parachutes, culminating with the Extra 200 bale-out, on the BAeA mailing list - I'll find out if he's OK with it being posted to a wider audience. Required reading for the aerobatic & formation brigade

As has been explained above, most training and touring aircraft simply aren't built with parachutes in mind.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Tigerbatics,

Ahem, I beg to differ.

10th August 1996, Pitts S-2A G-BKWI near Ipswich. Unrecoverable spin and crashed into tress, with 2 seriously injured.

8th April 1997, Pitts S-1 G-BUTO near Barton under Needwood. A/c entered inverted spin while carrying out aerobatics. Pilot unable to regain control & parachuted to safety. A/c destroyed.

And a few years ago, I myself watched a very experienced aerobatic & display pilot who's aircraft (Pitts S-1) didnt recover from a spin as expected and who narrowly avoided carving a neat hole in the airfield! I was already running towards the fire truck..........

I really don't want to get into a pi$$ing contest about spin recoveries on a Friday afternoon, so I bow to your superior knowledge :D but I well remember an old & bold aerobatic instructor mate once saying that ALL aircraft will spin, but not all will recover as and when expected!

One only has to study the UK Slingsby T67 accident statistics, especially regarding spin accidents, to appreciate this

[Squawk7143]

Tigerbatics,

You said....
"..... They are not, in my opinion, the safety aid they are made out to be and have some serious drawbacks......
.....But like the 'bone dome' I wonder if it is an image thing rather than a safety feature. A pose aid perhaps...."

I am puzzled, just what are the serious drawbacks you refer to? And I am even more puzzled that you think they may be a " pose aid".

I do not wear one because I spend my time in spam cans mostly. If I was jump flying or performing aeros I most certainly would wear one. Nothing to do with posing, just self preservation.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Has anyone ever seen anyone posing in a parachute? I well remember the old RAF Irvin parachute was too bl00dy difficult to even walk in!

BUT......I did see a sad looking sort of chap at the Kemble air display a few years back who spent all day wandering around AV8 wearing a pair of G trousers outside his neatly ironed flying suit, and he was not even on the flying programme!!!!! Must have been f:mad:ing uncomfortable

I bet all the punters thought he looked cooooooool:yuk:

[Croqueteer]

:)TB, the parachute is another option, and will work at low level. The proof is that I am writing this! I would say that a mid-air is the most likely worst scenario for a light aircraft, and that will probably be at a reasonable ht.., and don't think for a moment that you are immune to a non-recoverable (in the ht available) inverted spin situation. It's all in the accident reports.

[mm_flynn]

I would say that a mid-air is the most likely worst scenario for a light aircraft,
I beg to differ. If we are talking about powered aircraft (not gliders), how many fatal accidents have happened in the UK in the last say 5 years, and how many of them have been mid-airs? For spamcan flying we just don't kill ourselves in ways such that a personal parachute would materially influence the fatality rate.

[SNS3Guppy]

Irrecoverable spin in a Pitts ?


Ask Art Scholl about that. Oh, that's right. You can't. He's dead. Died in a spin. The guy who for a long time specialized in spins, particularly inverted flat spins, and held the world record for spins, and was one of the foremost aerobatic performers doing spins...and died in a Pitts S-2 doing a spin while filming Top Gun...

[tigerbatics]

What is it that happens to the Pitts that makes a spin 'irrecoverable'; aside that is, from mounting a 1980 camera on the tail of an S2, or the ground being too near?

Art Scholl was wearing a parachute wasn't he?

[hobbit1983]

Regardless, TB, still don't understand how the cons of wearing a chute can outweigh the pros.

[englishal]

How bulky are the smallest seat type parachutes? Our aeroplane is "semi aerobatic" (Rallye) with some approved aeros in the POH, though G limitation is only about 4.5G (we have a G meter). I quite fancy doing some aero's but wouldn't do any without a parachute on (at least to start with) as no one has aero'd the aircraft and I'd hate for the wings to fall off withot wearing one :O I notice the seat cushion can be removed leaving a tray which I assume is designed for the parachute?

(I have done aero's without a parachute in a Bulldog, with a competent instructor RHS ;) to save my bacon in case (when) I messed it up)

[BackPacker]

Regardless, TB, still don't understand how the cons of wearing a chute can outweigh the pros.

Just some cons that I can come up with. And I'm just starting aerobatics...

- Gotta have an aircraft with a jettisonable canopy for a parachute to make sense
- Gotta have had (freefall) parachute training and egress training
- Parachutes are expensive to acquire, and these sort of chutes need to be repacked by a professional every now and then (don't know the exact interval and why)
- A parachute is bulky so to fit in the same space you need to get rid of the padding in your seat or move the seat further down- or backwards. Uncomfortable, sometimes even impossible. (I am a tight fit in a Robin 2160 with just the very thin seat padding and the seat fully back. With a parachute I will most likely not fit at all anymore.)
- There's now a fairly thick layer of loose material between your back/butt and the airframe, which influences the "feel" of the aircraft. Makes a difference in aerobatics.

Combine that with the fact that there are only very few scenarios where a parachute might actually save your life (Unrecoverable spin has been mentioned, plus a midair and a seriously overstressed aircraft whose wings fell off), and this means that some people make the tradeoff not to wear one.

[hobbit1983]

Sorry, should have clarified that I meant just during aeros.

- Gotta have an aircraft with a jettisonable canopy for a parachute to make sense

Most aerobatic aircraft have these I think (with the exception of a Cessna Aerobat/Citabria IIRC. Don't know if these aircraft are flown with/without chutes?)

- Gotta have had (freefall) parachute training and egress training

Does the 20min briefing I had before I went flying AEF with the cadets in Bulldogs/Tutors count? If not, what was the RAF missing out?

Parachutes are expensive to acquire, and these sort of chutes need to be repacked by a professional every now and then (don't know the exact interval and why)

- A parachute is bulky so to fit in the same space you need to get rid of the padding in your seat or move the seat further down- or backwards. Uncomfortable, sometimes even impossible. (I am a tight fit in a Robin 2160 with just the very thin seat padding and the seat fully back. With a parachute I will most likely not fit at all anymore.) There's now a fairly thick layer of loose material between your back/butt and the airframe, which influences the "feel" of the aircraft. Makes a difference in aerobatics.

Combine that with the fact that there are only very few scenarios where a parachute might actually save your life (Unrecoverable spin has been mentioned, plus a midair and a seriously overstressed aircraft whose wings fell off), and this means that some people make the tradeoff not to wear one.

And the rest comes down to expense & comfort I as far as I've read it - somewhat similar to the debate between carrying lifejackets/immersion suits over water and so on.

So I would guess that it boils down to risk manangement & acceptance v other benefits, as you, I and others have said. Which is fair enough - but personally I would have thought that cost, comfort and some training wouldn't stack up well against being able to jump & live.

I can see the point about canopys etc, but surely it's better to try and get out with a chance rather than stay inside with none.

(All of the above posted with my acceptance that other people, vastly more experienced may know more about this than me! - total aero exp about 8 hrs with the very nice people at Kemble :ok:)

[eharding]

Just some cons that I can come up with. And I'm just starting aerobatics...
- Gotta have an aircraft with a jettisonable canopy for a parachute to make sense


Not necessarily - simply that the canopy can be opened with sufficient speed (at realistic airspeeds) to make it feasible to depart the aircraft.


- Gotta have had (freefall) parachute training and egress training


Egress training - yes. But that's something you can practice on the ground. Free-fall training - ideally, yes...have I? - no.


- Parachutes are expensive to acquire, and these sort of chutes need to be repacked by a professional every now and then (don't know the exact interval and why)


Figure around £800 - £1K for a decent emergency parachute, £40 for an annual repack. Being dead because you don't have one is free. Ditto for a decent helmet.


- A parachute is bulky so to fit in the same space you need to get rid of the padding in your seat or move the seat further down- or backwards. Uncomfortable, sometimes even impossible. (I am a tight fit in a Robin 2160 with just the very thin seat padding and the seat fully back. With a parachute I will most likely not fit at all anymore.)


Well, try it - both with a seat-pack and a back-pack. Regardless, if you're serious about aerobatics you won't stay in the Robin very long anyway :)


- There's now a fairly thick layer of loose material between your back/butt and the airframe, which influences the "feel" of the aircraft. Makes a difference in aerobatics.


Then get rid of whatever crappy harness you're using, and fit a set of Hooker aerobatic harnesses. Tighten the ratchet until you can hear your pelvis crack - then tighten it some more. After your first inverted check, another click on the ratchet should do it. Problem solved.


Combine that with the fact that there are only very few scenarios where a parachute might actually save your life (Unrecoverable spin has been mentioned, plus a midair and a seriously overstressed aircraft whose wings fell off), and this means that some people make the tradeoff not to wear one.


Yes, and if you find yourself in one of those situations without one, you will have the benefit of a few seconds quiet reflection that maybe it wasn't the smartest tradeoff you've ever made, but take some comfort at least you won't have to be the one to deal with the insurance paperwork.

To add to the scenarios above, I'd add a fire at altitude, and the prospect of a forced landing in (seriously) adverse terrain or, depending on aircraft type, a water ditching. A ditching in the Pitts or similar fixed-gear tail-dragger is almost certain to result in you being strapped, inverted in a flooded cockpit - my judgement is that stepping over the side is the marginally less dangerous option.


I'd highly recommend a read of Eddie's posting - sign up for the BAeA email/web forum, links from the BAeA website.

[BackPacker]

As I said, it's a trade-off that everybody makes for himself. A thousand UKP buys me not one but two FastFind Plus EPIRBs (or one EPIRB plus an immersion suit and a lifejacket), or about 10 flying hours in that Robin. That's 10 hours towards me upgrading to something sexier and more exciting. Although I might have to get a parachute then anyway.:ok:

Oh well, they told me from the outset, an aircraft is a hole in the sky that you throw money in.

[SNS3Guppy]

- Gotta have an aircraft with a jettisonable canopy for a parachute to make sense
- Gotta have had (freefall) parachute training and egress training
- Parachutes are expensive to acquire, and these sort of chutes need to be repacked by a professional every now and then (don't know the exact interval and why)
- A parachute is bulky so to fit in the same space you need to get rid of the padding in your seat or move the seat further down- or backwards. Uncomfortable, sometimes even impossible. (I am a tight fit in a Robin 2160 with just the very thin seat padding and the seat fully back. With a parachute I will most likely not fit at all anymore.)
- There's now a fairly thick layer of loose material between your back/butt and the airframe, which influences the "feel" of the aircraft. Makes a difference in aerobatics.


--Don't gotta have a jettisonable canopy, but you do need to know how to egress properly with your gear on, and you should practice it. This should be the case in any aircraft, no matter what you fly. You should be able to get around blindfolded, and know how to get out if you need to.

--Parachutes are expensive? Your life is cheap, then? I've been saved by parachutes on two occasions, and if you count skydiving, then many others, too (technically every skydive, if you think about it). The cost of inspection and repack, training, and the parachute itself, is the cheapest cost you'll ever have, if you have to use it. Then again, if you need one, failure to wear one will be the most costly thing you'll ever experience. You'll spend the rest of your life regretting it. Probably less than a minute.

--Parachutes are not bulky. Get a good aerobatic parachute and it doubles as a cushion, and is very comfortable. A good pilot rig is lightweight, comfortable, and a very, very wise investment if you intend to take up aerobatics. Parachutes don't take lives; they save them. The life you save of couse, will be your own.

--A parachute does NOT reduce your feel for the airplane in any way, shape, or form. Not in the least. Not for flying aerobatics, not for any kind of flying. If it does, you aren't wearing it properly, or have selected the wrong choice in parachute rigs.

So far as training, you should have training if you're going to wear a parachute, just as you should receive training with a weaponif you're going to carry a firearm. However, the big thing when wearing a parachute is to get clear and pull the silver handle, period. Freefall training isn't particularly relevant, as you're not getting out to freefall. It won't hurt, mind you, and skydiving is educational and worthwhile for a pilot. However, the training you need is in operating the parachute. Again, the cost of the training is dirt cheap, compared to the alternative. If you're making your choice based on cost, then you're messed up in your priority. You think you can't afford to wear a parachute. Don't let your last thought on this earth be that you can't afford not to.

[tigerbatics]

My remarks about wearing a parachute were directed to aerobatic flying only. I know it is usual in the US, indeed mandatory for dual aeros, to wear one and no doubt this has colured attitudes, but it is not required over here and until quite recently hardly anyone did.

Parachutes make good sense for formation flying, air racing (except F1), glider flying, indeed in any situation where aeroplanes will be in close company, the risk of collision is high and the relative speed should one occur will be small.

When I see a pilot wearing 'chute and bone dome for a flight in the box over an airfield I do wonder what he thinks is waiting for him up there to which these two items are an appropriate or proportionate response.

The main risk, I think, is an elevator restriction from some object dropped or left in the cockpit or abandoned by an engineer during maintenance. To discover this at 2000ft in the vertical down after a stall turn, work out what is wrong and jump is impossible; there simply is not time. The proper way to deal with this risk is pre-flight inspection and a regular use of flying suits to zip all items in place.

I do not say that there are not situations where the carriage of a 'chute is not of use. A long over water crossing in a Pitts comes to mind. Neither do I say that one cannot be caught out. What I do say is that the actual risks inherent in aerobatic flight are not best addresed by these means. A careful and thorough pre flight plan and an assessment of the exact sortie to be flown are of more use in my opinion.

The 'one other option' argument is also a potential trap where a pilot may fall between two stools; wait not long enough but delay too long.

[Croqueteer]

:)TB, "G-BUTO" was abondoned at about 1200ft in an inverted spin, (Going down about 4000ft/sec?) during comp practice. About 20sec under the canopy. You really are denying yourself that last chance, and by your influence, others as well. No amount of planning will prepare you for the unexpected. Believe me!

[tigerbatics]

No, I am not. It is a personal choice based upon one's own assessment of the various risks involved. I said that many would disagree with me and they are welcome to do so.

I will not comment on the particular crash you mention save to say that more time should have been spent on dual training to gain some basic aerobatic competance. An inverted spin off a stall turn and an inverted spin from a roll off the top are the two classic aerobatic 'schoolboy howlers'. You really have to be an awfully bad aerobatic pilot to do it by mistake.

A parachute should not become an excuse or 'comfort blanket', to fly beyond experience, competance, or training. That really could be very dangerous indeed.

[davidatter708]

Cessna Aerobats do have jetisonable doors you pull a d loop at the front of the door and it pulls both the hinge pins out and then the doors will fly of. However I have done some aeros in cessna and no parachute but this is a club aircraft. However if i were even to go near a pitts or extra I wouldnt dream of flying withoiut a parachute.
David

[Croqueteer]

:eek:TB, your last sentence is laughable, a bit similar to the authorities attitude to parachutes in WW1. I don't think you can have been involved in comp aeros, or you would know that to keep it looking right to the judges when it is going a bit pearshaped, the controls can end up in some funny positions. Beware of over-confidence. Guppy speaks with knowledge.

[tigerbatics]

My view comes from a close involvement with competition aeros as pilot, judge and trainer at all levels from standard to unlimited.

You are free to take a different one if you wish.

[Croqueteer]

:8 OK, noted. I'm still disappointed at your occasional choice of phrase, ie "schoolboy howler".

[eharding]

My view comes from a close involvement with competition aeros as pilot, judge and trainer at all levels from standard to unlimited.


Hmm, involved with coaching - for a Standard level pilot most recently?....with a legal background?...the net draws closer :E
I suspect that Tigerbatics may have indeed seen me don bonedome and parachute for a critique session in the overhead at WW on one of his visits - and clearly I was demonstrating a woeful Lack of Moral Fibre. The helmet is there because the statistics say sooner or later the engine is going to expire - should it expire mid-sequence, the forced landing is likely to be messier than most, and I'd rather the contents of my skull remained in place. Clearly, the parachute isn't going to help with an elevator restriction at the bottom of a down-line - as happened to a Yak-55 driver of my parish at Sywell a few years back when a coin jammed in the base of the stick linkage - the solution in that case being to exert enough brute strength (in spite of the driver being a sensitive artistic type) on the stick to cut the coin in half - maybe a decent set of biceps should be mandated as a required safety item for Yak-55 drivers? Bull-worker on someone's Christmas list perhaps?

I'd be interested to hear Tigerbatic's views on Sean Tucker's bale-out last year when the elevator linkage broke during a practise session - was he setting a bad example by stepping over the side? or should he have done the decent thing, and tried to land it using only the trimmer?

[tigerbatics]

Yes Ed you are right.

Our Yak-55 will be flying in the next week or two and next season at least one of us will be wearing a bonedome and one a parachute. The bonedome following the forced landing in the Pitts almost exactly a year ago.

I will wear neither. Never have and don't want to now. Absolutly no objection to anyone who wants to wear either or both. But I'm far happier free of those objects.

Bull-worker sounds like a good idea, thanks for the suggestion. Might also ask Father Christmas for a flying suit with zipped pockets for the odd coin, which is all I'll have left after paying for the fuel.

Seriously, it is nothing to do with fibre of any sort, diet or moral, just my preference and my assessment of the best way to manage the particular risks involved. There will always be cases where a 'chute is a lifesaver ( Tucker's probably ) just as you can, no doubt, find cases where yellow jackets have prevented accidents on airfields. It's just that both fall outside the range of those risks I feel a need to protect myself against.

[SNS3Guppy]

Parachutes make good sense for formation flying, air racing (except F1), glider flying, indeed in any situation where aeroplanes will be in close company, the risk of collision is high and the relative speed should one occur will be small.


Most of the time when I'm in formation, it's below 100' and a parachute would do no good...just like it would do little good for an air racer. That said, occasions have passed in which a damaged airplane was able to be climbed high enough to jump, saving the pilot and putting the aircrat away from a populated area, when air racing.

So far as a helmet...regulations require that I wear one, and last year I was glad to have one on during a turbine engine failure that resulted in a forced landing on a hillside. The failure occured at 150' AGL, an offered little opportunity for the use of a parachute.

Aerobatics are another matter entirely, and it is there that a parachute certainly should be worn.

[eharding]

Eddie Goggins' account of the Malta Aero GP bale-out I mentioned above is now on-line in the BAeA Aerobatics News Review

http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/Journal_Nov_07.pdf

Page 37.

Definately worth a read.

[llanfairpg]

1 - For most Spam cans it would be very hard work to get out of the plane in the air with rear trailing doorsWhat he really meant was its hard to get in and out at anytime--ground or air.

Glider pilots wear parachutes because they like congregating in the same thermal and can bump into each other .

I have tried wearing a parachute in the Airbus, it really unsettles the passengers!

[Croqueteer]

MM, last Sunday's tragic collision happened 4 miles from me. Parachutes might have been a saviour.

[mm_flynn]

I am no expert on the Luscombe, but would have thought with trailing doors (not likely to be quick release hinges) and an impact at 1500 ft the chances of bailing out at an altitude the parachute would do any good are pretty low.

A tragic accident, but not really support for wearing parachutes.

[waldopepper42]

Realistically - what is the minimum height for successful use of a parachute? (for those people who do not have Eddie Goggins' lightning fast reactions - that was an amazing feat!).

I DO wear a parachute , but have always felt that it would not be much help during a competition if it goes wrong towards the bottom of the box (1000').

During a conversation I had some years ago with a very experienced warbird pilot he asserted that unless you actually formulate an egress plan (including abandonment height) BEFORE the flight, the parachute is likely to be useless. Why? - because pilots tend to carry on trying to recover until it's too late. It's a very difficult decision to jump out of an aeroplane for most people and thinking one more turn and it might recover.....????

I don't know if this is true, but would be interested to hear other people's opinions..


I know the RAF pilots include an abandonment height as part of the briefing before aerobatics, so there might be something in this..?

[foxmoth]

But like the 'bone dome' I wonder if it is an image thing rather than a safety feature. A pose aid perhaps.

try this on Barry Tempest!:mad:

[BackPacker]

Waldopepper, I think you are right. In fact, I'm amazed that you haven't already decided on a decision height for yourself, since you are already wearing a parachute.

I think a decision height should be so that you have sufficient time to:
- Jettison the canopy/open the doors
- Release the seat belts, get rid of headset and anything else that's in the way
- Get out the aircraft, considering that it might be at Vne, inverted or spinning, or any combination thereof.
- Pull the chute (and do you need to be more or less stable before you pull, to avoid tangling the lines or not?)
- Let the chute deploy and slow you down
- Still have a few seconds left to steer clear of the worst of the terrain, and setup for an into-wind landing

Below that height, realistically, you might as well jump out without a parachute since it's not going to deploy in time. Or better: stay in whatever is left of the aircraft, try to steer it towards the softest spot available with the lowest velocity you can manage, and then let the airframe take most of the impact forces.

Any aeros pilot who already did this calculation? What's your decision height and how did you calculate it?

[foxmoth]

Pull the chute (and do you need to be more or less stable before you pull, to avoid tangling the lines or not?)

If I am in the situation that I am doing this I am not going to worry too much about being stable, Ideally I will miss the trees and be into wind, but again, if I am getting out of an aircraft before it is on the ground, even trees and a downwind landing are going to be better options.:uhoh:

[SNS3Guppy]

I think a decision height should be so that you have sufficient time to:
- Jettison the canopy/open the doors
- Release the seat belts, get rid of headset and anything else that's in the way
- Get out the aircraft, considering that it might be at Vne, inverted or spinning, or any combination thereof.
- Pull the chute (and do you need to be more or less stable before you pull, to avoid tangling the lines or not?)
- Let the chute deploy and slow you down
- Still have a few seconds left to steer clear of the worst of the terrain, and setup for an into-wind landing

Below that height, realistically, you might as well jump out without a parachute since it's not going to deploy in time. Or better: stay in whatever is left of the aircraft, try to steer it towards the softest spot available with the lowest velocity you can manage, and then let the airframe take most of the impact forces.

You're wrong on several counts, but it's clear you haven't used a parachute before.

In an emergency deployment, there's only one thing you need to do; deploy the parachute (pull or throw as the case may be). Getting stable, landing into the wind, several seconds of canopy time...all meaningless. The only time you're going to use that parachute is when your other options are gone. When you use that parachute, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by deploying that parachute. You're not going to take the time to evaluate your altitude, you're not going to stay with a hopeless situation because you might be above or below your "decision altitude."

Deciding to stay with an unrecoverable situation and "let the airframe take the impact forces" is a very bad idea. Suicidal, in fact.

As far as egress...that's something for which you need to train.

Emergency parachutes deploy with very little loss of altitude. I have three experiences with emergency parachute deployment, as well as 20 years of skydiving and parachuting experience. I can certainly testify regarding the merit of a parachute when it's needed.

[BackPacker]

So even if something goes wrong at, let's say, 1000 feet (bottom of the aerobatics box) you have enough time for egress and parachute deployment? That's pretty impressive.

Still, you're at 3000 feet or more and you enter a spin. For some reason you find that you can't stop the spin. What's the altitude that you stop trying and bail out?

[foxmoth]

Still, you're at 3000 feet or more and you enter a spin. For some reason you find that you can't stop the spin. What's the altitude that you stop trying and bail out?

If I am not doing it for display then 3,000 would be the height I set for abandon - I would then normally work up from there to give my start height with a height to start recovery at least 1,000' above my abandon ht plus 250-300'/turn. If I was not well on my way out the aircraft by 1500' I would probably then get rid of so much of the brown stuff I would float out the cockpit, but realistically if you were out by 500' and pulled the chute straight away you would probably just about get away with it!:eek:

[Croqueteer]

:)Good posts, Guppy and Foxmoth. The gentleman who packs my chute is a bully and makes me deploy the chute and go through an escape scenario at repack time, plus a bit of training in Betty Windsor's flying club. He reckons that with some horizontal speed with the chute I used to have, an American Airforce seat pack, you might just get away with it at 250ft. In my case, it was about 1200ft but going down fast. I'm sure that previous training saved me, for example when I thought that I had better pull the ripcord, I noticed that it was already in my hand! If you are mentally prepared for it, you act amazingly fast. Also having spent a working life reading "Air Clues" and similar safety mags, you know most of the stories of late descisions, loss of control, etc, so from that point of view i was well prepared. I know the experts said I should not have been in that situation, but I know of various pilots much more skilled than I, including Brian L, who have taken many thousands of feet to recover from such a situation. Why deny yourself that last chance for the extra couple of minutes it takes to don a parachute. It adds to your list of options.

[Ridgerunner]

I have read many people mentioning "unrecoverable spins" etc and understand that spinning was removed from the JAA PPL syllabus as it had gone wrong on too many occassions, but I have never had a real explanation as to why the spin became unrecoverable or why it apparently went wrong during training on many occassions. My understanding is that:

- The aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics result in an unrecoverable spin and so is the aircraft is not cleared for spinning

- The aircraft is loaded incorrectly and so the C of G is outwith limits and thus a spin become unrecoverable

If one of the aeros gurus on here could explain how this situation develops then I would appreciate it, as it is one topic I have never felt satisfied by an answer so far.

Thanks and Merry Christmas all,

RR

[llanfairpg]

understand that spinning was removed from the JAA PPL syllabus as it had gone wrong on too many occassions,
It wasnt removed because it had gone wrong on too many occasions it was removed because it was deemed out of date and pointless in the world war two syllabus that existed at the time

[Ken Wells]

EX 11 should never have been removed and was pushed for removal by Cessna, who where trying to standardise their training format with the FAA.

Some bright spark at Cessna decided that some students had been put off the syllabus by over eager instructors demonstrating spinning.

I was fortunate to begin my teaching stint when it was mandatory and one could demonstrate quite thoroughly without frightening the student.

Then the CAA decided to replace Ex 11 with slow flight and schools where initially given the option of not teaching spinning.

I can remember a CFI at the time that I worked for jumped at the chance of banning Ex11 straight away and I was once reprimanded for teaching it,( at the students request I might ad), because he was so dead against it!! Bloody daft!!
:=

[tigerbatics]

I agree. It was a mistake to remove spinning. The result has been that the average instructor today has, in all probability, not done enough spinning to be able to teach it in a proper, comprehensive and safe manner; nor does he want to being too keen to convert people onto glass cockpit aeroplanes in which spinning is prohibited.
Since you ask Ridgerunner, your understanding is correct. The 'irrecoverable spin' where fully aerobatic aeroplanes are concerned, is caused by control restriction/failure or by inadequate height. There is no aerodynamic 'spin mode' which evolves during a spin in such machines that prevents recovery. I assume a proper loading.
Most reported incidents are the result of incorrect spin recovery techniques which when applied do not effect recovery as expected and so lead the pilot to believe the spin is 'irrecoverable' or the recovery is 'delayed'. This could be due to a lack of current practice, to poor training, to a misguided attempt to apply the so-called standard spin recovery where it is wholly inappropriate, or just stress.
Aviation has always had a lot of 'spin myths' ever since pilots knew there was a spin to go into. There is, for example, nothing whatever wrong with the spin characteristics of the T67. The USAF could find nothing wrong in 1000 tests and it is daily spun in RAF training. But you still hear some people raising doubts and continuing to spread that particular spin myth. The Pitts is also said by some to have on occasion been difficult to recover. This is absolute rubbish; it responds perfectly to the proper recovery method in all spin modes, erect, inverted or flat or any possible combination.

[Ken Wells]

:confused:Depends on the aircraft as well.


High wing, T-Tail, Low wing, Jet, Bi-plane.

Good classic reference book : Eric Muller - Aerobatics.

see spin recovery.http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/yak.gif

I took this with me to Russia in 1993 when I flew with Genna Elfimov and Victor Ostapemko, best pilots I have ever flown with. 4 weeks non stop aeros in YAK 52 and 50 at a place χЛАМВО (roughly translated, rubbish place ) south of Smolensk.

We explored every combination of spin recovery flat and inverted.:eek:

Before the first flight after many discussions and briefings, I asked what happens if we don't get it right, as we where testing different recovery methods. He smiled and said "no problem we just get out" Glad to say we didn’t have to!:rolleyes: