Cirrus parachutes into the Solent

[treadigraph]

Both on board appear to be OK.

https://twitter.com/MarkGodden/status/1267096397276422149?s=20

[yakker]

https://www.islandecho.co.uk/plane-crashes-into-the-solent-near-cowes/

[Right Hand Thread]

Nice to see both passengers were able to extricate themselves after splashdown.

[Big Eric]

Another one from Twitter :- https://twitter.com/BBCPeterH/status/1267107960054001669

[Waltzer]

F**k me!!! Pull the ‘chute..

[DaveReidUK]

Lee-on-Solent based SR22 G-CTAM. Good to see everyone is OK.

[VX275]

They need to fit water pockets (or a disconnect) to that parachute. I'll bet that aircraft was dragged at some speed (leaving its occupants behind in the water), luckily they were in the solent so every wind direction was 'on-shore'. I had something similar happen during a RIB airdrop test when one of the parachutes didn't disconnect, capsizing the RIB and towing it towards America (from the Welsh coast) faster than the range tender could sail.

[broadreach]

You have to wonder why, once the parachute had dragged the aircraft to the beach, nobody seems to have had the presence of mind to deflate it. Which then brings one to a second question: can Cirrus parachutes be recycled?

[neilki]

You have to wonder why, once the parachute had dragged the aircraft to the beach, nobody seems to have had the presence of mind to deflate it. Which then brings one to a second question: can Cirrus parachutes be recycled?
they rapidly become the property of the insurer. Iirc there were some problems with ‘rebuilt’ CAPS systems a few years back....https://www.avweb.com/ownership/cirrus-caps-repacks-expense-depreciation/
deployment renders a fair amount of damage to the monocoque as the straps are buried beneath the exterior painted layers..
in addition, the airframe is designed to impact the ground with the gear designed to absorb most of the impact and the seats have a collapsible honeycomb base to save your spine.
Hitting water will likely fuse much more damage to the belly and wings.
looking at the video; inverted with a G1000 full of seawater... someone’s’ premiums are going up!

[Waltzer]

You have to wonder why, once the parachute had dragged the aircraft to the beach, nobody seems to have had the presence of mind to deflate it. Which then brings one to a second question: can Cirrus parachutes be recycled?

The Police were clearly keeping people away. I can see your logic though.

[Andrewgr2]

You have to wonder when the plane inverted. Hopefully after the occupants got out.

[Waltzer]

Lol what are you saying

What do you think?

Fortunately everyone was ok.

One has to wonder why these Cirrus’ are crashing, it’s such a new design but many are coming to grief?

There is also, of course, the added consideration of the aircraft landing on persons under parachute (fortunately it didn’t).

[Sallyann1234]

Interesting decision whether to pull the chute or attempt a landing on the water or beach.

[extralite]

What do you think?

Fortunately everyone was ok.

One has to wonder why these Cirrus’ are crashing, it’s such a new design but many are coming to grief?

There is also, of course, the added consideration of the aircraft landing on persons under parachute (fortunately it didn’t).

Many have been no oil...no fuel...icing..the sort of thing that would be far worse without a chute and has been responsible for a fair few of them. Insurance jobs. Coupled with the fact they are the biggest seller so there is a lot of them. As an owner can attest they are almost idiot proof which of course can lead to complacency. Great machine to go places but still need to fuel plan, do your checks, avoid icing etc. With full tanks it has over 5 hrs of flying..well beyond most people's limits.

[jimjim1]

There is video of a Cirrus parachuting into the Pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU

Touchdown at 1m 51s (44:00 on clock?)
In a few seconds the water on the RHS door was up to the windows due to the parachute dragging the aircraft.
The sole occupant exited the LHS and the aircraft was inverted and the cabin full of water at 2m 26s (45:06 on clock?).

It appears that therefore it was 65s to invert the aircraft and fill the cabin with water. I suspect that it would have been MUCH sooner if the leeward door had been opened instead of the windward door. I would presume that there was no way that the pilot could control the way the aircraft was pointing at touchdown.

Maybe Cirrus could improve the water landing performance in a bit of breeze? I can't really see how 4 people could have escaped.

[Right Hand Thread]

Interesting decision whether to pull the chute or attempt a landing on the water or beach.

Why not a bit of both?

Wind at the time was approximately 140/14 so an onshore breeze. Would the aircraft not have made more track distance toward the beach gliding and then deploying than deploying immediately, out over the water, and drifting landward at 14 knots? Maybe that's what they did, time will tell.

[extralite]

Why not a bit of both?

Wind at the time was approximately 140/14 so an onshore breeze. Would the aircraft not have made more track distance toward the beach gliding and then deploying than deploying immediately, out over the water, and drifting landward at 14 knots? Maybe that's what they did, time will tell.

The cirrus training says always pull the chute unless directly over a field. That was drummed in. Their reasoning is that apparently survival rate so far is 100 percent under a cirrus chute. Not the case with their forced landings. I know i would pull the chute rather than ditch or land on a less than ideal beach such as that situation.

[Jonzarno]

Interesting decision whether to pull the chute or attempt a landing on the water or beach.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-father-killed-daughter-critically-injured-beach-plane/story?id=24734696

Sadly this is not an isolated incident. By contrast nobody on the ground has ever been injured by a Cirrus coming down under CAPS.

[WTON]

Interesting decision whether to pull the chute or attempt a landing on the water or beach.

I am a Cirrus driver.

Cirrus engineers said, from 500 to 2000 feet AGL use the CAPS, above 2000 feet AGL that could became an option.

[lsh]

It needs a 'chute release, for activating after touchdown.
Was a big worry for Apollo missions.
I believe F111 had release too.

lsh
:E

[dash34]

.. Their reasoning is that apparently survival rate so far is 100 percent under a cirrus chute. ...

Sadly this is not the case - several aircraft have caught fire under chute resulting in the death of the occupants.

[Jonzarno]

Sadly this is not the case - several aircraft have caught fire under chute resulting in the death of the occupants.

Wrong: there has been no such incident.

There has been one fatal accident in which a non-survivable mid air collision triggered the parachute and caused a fire.

[MARK 101]

Looking at the number of people on the beach, would imagine that paid a factor. Imagine finding a safe space and dealing with whatever had gone wrong was not a real option

[mjws]

Interesting to review his day out on Flight Radar. Down to Exeter area along the coast with a good tailwind and return into quite a headwind. Flight ended 3 miles from destination, makes one wonder if he had enough fuel and suffered from ‘Get home itis’?

[NutLoose]

You have to wonder why, once the parachute had dragged the aircraft to the beach, nobody seems to have had the presence of mind to deflate it. Which then brings one to a second question: can Cirrus parachutes be recycled?

They were probably awaiting an armed response unit to arrive on the scene to chute it....


Hat and coat....

[treadigraph]

They were probably awaiting an armed response unit to arrive on the scene to chute it....


Hat and coat....

You won't get a riser out of me with that one...

[PDR1]

Your response will remain shrouded - but let's not open that can-o-peas.

PDR

[Waltzer]

Wrong: there has been no such incident.

There has been one fatal accident in which a non-survivable mid air collision triggered the parachute and caused a fire.

And the guy that looks like he pulled the ‘chute too late and landed in Orcutt school playground.

[ivor toolbox]

What do you think?

Fortunately everyone was ok.

One has to wonder why these Cirrus’ are crashing, it’s such a new design but many are coming to grief?

There is also, of course, the added consideration of the aircraft landing on persons under parachute (fortunately it didn’t).


Not that new a design, been built since 2001

Ttfn

[Waltzer]

Not that new a design, been built since 2001

Ttfn

Shows how old I am!!

[Jonzarno]

And the guy that looks like he pulled the ‘chute too late and landed in Orcutt school playground.

That was a post impact fire resulting, as you say, from an attempted deployment well below the minimum deployment height during a base to final stall / spin. The assertion to which I was replying was that there had been cases in which aircraft had been on fire under the chute.

[San Diego kid]

There is also, of course, the added consideration of the aircraft landing on persons under parachute (fortunately it didn’t).

do you think it’s better to get a plane falling on you without a chute?

[double_barrel]

The cirrus training says always pull the chute unless directly over a field. That was drummed in. Their reasoning is that apparently survival rate so far is 100 percent under a cirrus chute. Not the case with their forced landings. I know i would pull the chute rather than ditch or land on a less than ideal beach such as that situation.

Yes. In the early days of the CAPS system, Cirrus found people were dying when they could have been saved by the chute. They found pilots were reluctant to use the system. New procedures and training, including the "CAPS available" callout seems to have largely fixed that.

Of course plenty of aircraft must have been destroyed when they would have managed a power off landing, but you don't know in advance which is which. Lives have been saved at the cost of some additional aircraft destroyed.

[Monty Niveau]

Regrettably, there is much less data on the number of successful forced landings than the number of unsuccessful ones, which tends to skew opinion somewhat. When I've flown a Cirrus, I have absolutely maintained that I might use the CAPS in some situations, but my default option would be a proper forced landing with the hope of using the aircraft again, and I have never flown in situations where I have relied on planning to use CAPS (eg IMC down to the ground). That said, one has to be (a) good enough and (b) in currency at such things to take that route. A gliding background and history of successful field landings certainly informs my perspective.

[Fostex]

Talking of Cirrus, someone just bought a new one.

https://bit.ly/3020lZK

The paint scheme is pretty awful. I wonder if it has a purple CAPS canopy as well. One way to find out!

[Right Hand Thread]

The cirrus training says always pull the chute unless directly over a field. That was drummed in. Their reasoning is that apparently survival rate so far is 100 percent under a cirrus chute. Not the case with their forced landings. I know i would pull the chute rather than ditch or land on a less than ideal beach such as that situation.


Yes, except I didn't write "ditch or land on a less than ideal beach". I said (paraphrase) glide toward the beach first and thereby have a better chance of landing on terra firma than just pull without thinking and ride down as a passenger with absolutely no control, possibly to the detriment of oneself or more importantly the people below. The photo of the aircraft inverted should make the risk to occupants obvious, people rarely drown on dry land.

BRS systems are a great tool but in too many cases people think they abrogate all responsibility. The pilot chooses to take the risk, the innocents below do not.

[Duchess_Driver]

BRS systems are a great tool but in too many cases people think they abrogate all responsibility. The pilot chooses to take the risk, the innocents below do not.

Pray tell, why is a BRS equipped aircraft any different with respect to “the innocents below” when faced with non-BRS structural failure, or as we’ve seen recently, someone not putting the gear down then doing a go-around over a city suburb?

In life, we take risks every time we walk out the door. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is.

The attitude of aircrew was the same when ejection seats were first introduced in that they’d stay with the aircraft through ‘machismo’ (I can recover this) rather than the easier “Martin Baker let-down.”

[DaveReidUK]

I suspect that BRS doesn't have any inbuilt capability to avoid schools and hospitals. :O

[BirdmanBerry]

We had one come down behind our house a few years back - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25344780

[double_barrel]

We had one come down behind our house a few years back - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25344780

Another UK-based N-reg. Lots about

[Jonzarno]

Yes, except I didn't write "ditch or land on a less than ideal beach". I said (paraphrase) glide toward the beach first and thereby have a better chance of landing on terra firma than just pull without thinking and ride down as a passenger with absolutely no control, possibly to the detriment of oneself or more importantly the people below. The photo of the aircraft inverted should make the risk to occupants obvious, people rarely drown on dry land.

BRS systems are a great tool but in too many cases people think they abrogate all responsibility. The pilot chooses to take the risk, the innocents below do not.

This is an argument that has been made quite often but which overlooks a couple of important points. Whilst here are risks to people on the ground associated both with CAPS and an engine out glide to land. In the glide to land scenario, you have an aircraft gliding in silently at or above stall speed and carrying all the kinetic energy that implies. There have been several cases of people on the ground being killed by this, one example being this accident (https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-father-killed-daughter-critically-injured-beach-plane/story?id=24734696)

In a BRS deployment you hear a loud bang as the rocket deploys, then you see a big red parachute and an aircraft descending at less than a quarter of its stall speed and carrying a tenth of the kinetic energy.

That’s why several CAPS events have been filmed: people had time to identify what had happened and pull out a phone to film it. By extension, they would also have had time to get out of the way if necessary.

I might also add that in 96 successful CAPS pulls over 20 years not one person on the ground has ever been injured. That’s not to say it is absolutely impossible in all circumstances, but it strongly suggests that the relative risk is much lower if CAPS is used.

There is also the fact that all pilots and passengers in these CAPS pulls have also survived whereas there have been plenty of fatal accidents in which pilots have not been successful in gliding to land.

[Pilot DAR]

I might also add that in 96 successful CAPS pulls over 20 years not one person on the ground has ever been injured.

I accept that this statement as written, may be correct, though I can think of at least one case where an unsuccessful CAPS deployment resulted in both occupant and ground fatalities. Perhaps, had the pilot been able to control the path of the plane to the surface, the pilot could have reduced the severity of the crash.

I can think of several CAPS deployments where it is a certainty that the use of CAPS has minimized the severity of the crash. In the cases which come to mind, had the airplane been over a more suitable landing surface, a gliding landing would also have worked. I can also think of a number of CAPS "arrivals" into a place where a successful glide landing was obviously possible too. Sure the occupants survived, and only a plane was wasted. That's okay, if planes and insurance are cheap. Neither of my planes are CAPS equipped, nor insured for hull, so while I'm flying, I tend towards making more of my flying lower risk in all respects ('cause a lot of it is my risk!), and I practice forced landings regularly, for my own piece of mind.

Of course, it is a pilot's choice to select a CAPS equipped airplane, and thereafter their responsibility to fly it in consideration of its design features and limitations. However, having an added safety element should not lure the pilot into surrendering control if a safe power off landing could be made. And... as the pilot has chosen to fly over people, but the people have not chosen to be flown over, the pilot bears all of the responsibility to not endanger people on the ground with the risks of the flying. If this means that the pilot needs to steer the plane such as to increase their personal risk, to reduce risk to innocent people on the ground, so be it. It is not the responsibility of people on the ground to accept risk, nor take action, to maintain their safety from an aircraft which is no longer in controlled flight. To me, that would mean that if a pilot has chosen to fly over a built up/crowded area, that pilot has 100% responsibility to steer a stricken plane well away from the people, even if doing so increases their risk. That's why landing on a smooth, yet crowded road is a much less good choice, that the risk of flipping over in the plowed field next to the road. The pilot has to accept the risk, not place it on other people....

[Jonzarno]

I don’t disagree with any of that as a fundamental principle of flying safely. It is largely reflected in the training that CSIPs provide and is also part of the CPPPs organised by COPA.

The point about it not being the responsibility of people on the ground to get out of the way is quite right, but it applies equally to an aircraft gliding in at or above its stall speed. The accident link I posted, and a similar recent tragedy on a beach in Spain, are sad illustrations of the consequences of an otherwise apparently competent pilot getting that aspect wrong (I’m not sure, but think I recall reading that in the Spanish incident there may have been an instructor in the aircraft?).

They obviously didn’t kill those people deliberately, which means that they lost control at a critical moment. History suggests that in both cases, had CAPS been available (sadly it wasn’t!) there would likely have been a better outcome if that option could have been taken.

[Pilot DAR]

which means that they lost control at a critical moment. History suggests that in both cases, had CAPS been available (sadly it wasn’t!) there would likely have been a better outcome if that option could have been taken.

I agree that an airplane descending under a parachute may be a better outcome than an airplane in which the pilot has lost control. Indeed, both planes are out of control, but the parachute plane is certainly descending with less energy. An element of my point is that having the CAPS available should not relieve the pilot of maintaining skills at forced landing, and if a forced landing, maybe flying the plane under control, to a known crash, if doing so will evidently prevent a risk to people on the ground. Yes, generally, a plane should be ditched rather than landed on an occupied beach, landed in the plowed field, rather than a busy road, or flown and crashed under control into a vacant area of a city, rather than drifting down out of control into a random part of the city.

For the CAPS deployments in which the pilot survived a forest or ocean landing, or the passenger saved themselves following a pilot medical event, excellent! That's what it's for! But, where a flyable airplane (albeit unpowered) drifts under a parachute into a crowded place, where a controlled landing or crash with no risk to people on the ground were possible, I think the pilot is morally obligated to control its path away from the people as the first priority.

[Jonzarno]

There’s not much difference between us although I would probably use CAPS more readily and earlier in an emergency than you. I do stress that the training is all about integrating CAPS into dealing with an emergency and very definitely not “see a warning light, pull the handle”.

[Tashengurt]

Looking at the number of people on the beach, would imagine that paid a factor. Imagine finding a safe space and dealing with whatever had gone wrong was not a real option

I'd agree with this. Much easier for people to scoot out of the way of a relatively slow moving chute than a faster moving potentially almost silent aircraft

[Pilot DAR]

Much easier for people to scoot out of the way of a

Bearing in mind, that there is zero obligation for a person to scoot out of the way of an airplane, other than perhaps if they are standing on a runway at an airport. It is the obligation of the pilot, both moral and legal, to maneuver the airplane to prevent hitting anyone - not unlike a car driver. There is never a driving excuse of "they did not get out of my way, so I hit them", 'same thing for pilots!

[capngrog]

Bearing in mind, that there is zero obligation for a person to scoot out of the way of an airplane, other than perhaps if they are standing on a runway at an airport. It is the obligation of the pilot, both moral and legal, to maneuver the airplane to prevent hitting anyone - not unlike a car driver. There is never a driving excuse of "they did not get out of my way, so I hit them", 'same thing for pilots!

Given the option of scooting out of the way of approaching danger or waiting for another to divert the approaching danger, I'm scootin' every time!

Cheers,
Grog

[megan]

There is never a driving excuse of "they did not get out of my way, so I hit them", 'same thing for pilots!I think it was in one of Kerns books the following is told. Pilot of a US jet fighter was trying to navigate his way through thunderstorms, ran into trouble and was forced to eject. The canopy fell to earth and hit a road construction worker, killing him in the process. The pilot was found liable in court, the outcome of trying to get through the thunderstorms was a predictable outcome.

[treadigraph]

Mike Patey's videos are always worth a watch, this one perhaps particularly so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bOEnNpSBCM

[Flyingmac]

Wrong: there has been no such incident.

There has been one fatal accident in which a non-survivable mid air collision triggered the parachute and caused a fire.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/72377

[capngrog]

Flyingmac;

Thanks for the link to the NTSB report of the Cirrus-Pawnee mid air. The Schweizer sailplane/glider that was being towed by the Pawnee was fortunate to have not been "collected" by the wreckage of the mid-air collision. The glider pilot stated that he noticed the Cirrus approaching and fearing that it would impactl the towline, he reached for the release just as the Pawnee and Cirrus collided. The glider pilot reported flying through a "ball of fire" immediately after the collision, but the glider was reportedly undamaged. In my limited experience and from what I've read, most aero tow ropes used in the U.S. are 200 ft. long, and at the reported climb speed of 70 mph, approximately two seconds would elapse while traversing from one end (glider end) of the tow rope to the other end (tow plane end). Had the ballistic chute triggered at impact (causing the ball of fire) it is quite possible (maybe even likely) that the glider would have hit the shroud lines of the ballistic parachute. With all that said, I don't think that the ball of fire was caused by the rocket of the ballistic parachute system, but by the collision itself. I think that it is more likely that the ballistic parachute was triggered some time after the collision and resulting ball of fire.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Grog

[Flyingmac]

I remember seeing footage of the aircraft on fire under the 'chute and two people jumping from the aircraft when the fire got too much. From what looked like a couple of hundred feet at most.
How genuine it was, I don't know. It seems to have disappeared.

[megan]

Report on the mid air.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100204X45658&ntsbno=CEN10FA115C&akey=3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf8DYXUOai8