Cirrus CAPS deployment option during emergency
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the whole point, he DID lose essentially a whole wing and it was NOT all over. I'm not the world's greatest pilot, but I do know quite a lot about physics and their conclusion stands up. With sufficient speed the characteristics of the aircraft become more those of a rocket. Clearly there are many other contributing factors, but for this particular type the evidence speaks for itself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an impressive video showing a positive outcome of a very serious situation. It is evident that despite this dangerous circumstances, the pilot decided to land the plane; even though he had the option of ejecting from the plane. A very courageous pilot.
He got out of the spin, then stabilized the jet and landed it safely. Great job.
Thats exactly the type of situational awareness that I always strive to accomplish when I jump into the cockpit.
WP
He got out of the spin, then stabilized the jet and landed it safely. Great job.
Thats exactly the type of situational awareness that I always strive to accomplish when I jump into the cockpit.
WP
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pilot decided to land the plane; even though he had the option of ejecting from the plane. A very courageous pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sternone,
I'm not sure if the physical structure of a plane is vital aspect for decision making. I would rather say that it is the feeling. The question is: am I in control?
Even if I know that the structure of my plane is not intact (e.g. part of the wind is off), but my feeling for the control is OK and that I'm satisfied with the flight or aerodynamic characteristics (stability) of the plane, I would continue with the flight and try to land the plane.
In this case, the pilot made the right decision.
WP
I'm not sure if the physical structure of a plane is vital aspect for decision making. I would rather say that it is the feeling. The question is: am I in control?
Even if I know that the structure of my plane is not intact (e.g. part of the wind is off), but my feeling for the control is OK and that I'm satisfied with the flight or aerodynamic characteristics (stability) of the plane, I would continue with the flight and try to land the plane.
In this case, the pilot made the right decision.
WP
Last edited by worldpilot; 27th Oct 2007 at 16:10.
Moderator
There sure is a lot of chatter about things falling off aircraft. In the civil world, the physical loss of an aircraft component vital to safe flight, during unabusive flight is very rare. It happened to me in a C180 (flap track), and I got it down with no more harm done. There are a lot of dangerous situations, and pilot induced risks which desreve management, education, and discussion long before things falling of GA aircraft, or even control loss or lock up.
I can't say that there might not be a day in the future when I wished I had a parachute. I wore one lots when flying jumpers (operational requirement), but there would be lots of things I'm sure I'd more likely need in an emergency first. How about pop out floats for the whole plane? Helicopters have them! Or a second engine!
GA aviation has so much experience, that we know where the hazards are by now. Parachute won't help most of them. I would choose to not carry the weight, and ongoing maintenace burden.
I agree with the previous writer, if it will fly at all, you fly it. If you cannot fly it, make a really good job of crashing it. Oh, by the way, were you wearing the already available shoulder harness? If you're not wearing that, the parachute is going to hurt you!
Pilot DAR
I can't say that there might not be a day in the future when I wished I had a parachute. I wore one lots when flying jumpers (operational requirement), but there would be lots of things I'm sure I'd more likely need in an emergency first. How about pop out floats for the whole plane? Helicopters have them! Or a second engine!
GA aviation has so much experience, that we know where the hazards are by now. Parachute won't help most of them. I would choose to not carry the weight, and ongoing maintenace burden.
I agree with the previous writer, if it will fly at all, you fly it. If you cannot fly it, make a really good job of crashing it. Oh, by the way, were you wearing the already available shoulder harness? If you're not wearing that, the parachute is going to hurt you!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the only real reason for the 'chute was that in initial testing,
no reliable spin recovery technique could be found, and the POH gives 'chute pulling as the recommended action if in a spin. Personally, in all the other cases, I would want to fly it down as any other aircraft.
Over the sea, all advice I have ever seen is that in significant waves, 'land' along them, whatever the wind direction. Wave height will not be relevant.
The statistics are that water 'landings' are highly survived - its the hypothermia that gets you.
no reliable spin recovery technique could be found, and the POH gives 'chute pulling as the recommended action if in a spin. Personally, in all the other cases, I would want to fly it down as any other aircraft.
Over the sea, all advice I have ever seen is that in significant waves, 'land' along them, whatever the wind direction. Wave height will not be relevant.
The statistics are that water 'landings' are highly survived - its the hypothermia that gets you.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, in all the other cases, I would want to fly it down as any other aircraft.
Fair enough, but the aircraft "inspires" people to fly hard IFR.
As I commented early, I wouldn’t want to fly the aircraft down with a low cloud base.
Airframe icing is another scenario when you would think twice.
I also commented before there is some terrain over which I certainly would not want to try a forced landing.
Boulder strewn moorland areas will always require some luck as will any mountainous terrain even if you aim for the valleys to name but two.
Finally, any FL at night is going to owe more to luck than judgement.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MikeJ
I thought that the only real reason for the 'chute was that in initial testing, no reliable spin recovery technique could be found, and the POH gives 'chute pulling as the recommended action if in a spin.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every one of those people who say that spin recovery should be taught in the PPL should read that document.
So, only about 0.5% of the total airplanes, or just short of 1% of those prohibited from spinning ( 9 airplanes in this study), were in an environment that would have allowed a recovery.
(page 10 of the PDF).
(page 10 of the PDF).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If an aileron fell off (which happened once, IIRC)"
It has happened at least twice actually.
In the first incident the Cirrus test pilot was tragically killed as the aircraft he was flying did not have a CAPS fitted.
The second incident I read about shortly after the fatal one - it ended with a successful CAPS deployment.
So there is evidence Fuji.
IMHO Something is inherently wrong with the design if essential control surfaces are falling off rendering the aircraft unflyable.
No I am not a fan, 007.
The Cirrus was designed for drivers not pilots.
SB
It has happened at least twice actually.
In the first incident the Cirrus test pilot was tragically killed as the aircraft he was flying did not have a CAPS fitted.
The second incident I read about shortly after the fatal one - it ended with a successful CAPS deployment.
So there is evidence Fuji.
IMHO Something is inherently wrong with the design if essential control surfaces are falling off rendering the aircraft unflyable.
No I am not a fan, 007.
The Cirrus was designed for drivers not pilots.
SB
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FWIW, we were taught in the PPL theory class (last year) that water, such as a forrest lake, is priority three for emergency landing sites, after clear open fields (#1) and standing crop or ploughed fields (#2) but ahead of tree tops.
On account of people's brains don't work very well whilst in water just above freezing point, they do things like swim into the back of the plane instead of out of the door.
Having accidentally ended up in cold water once, off a capsized sailing boat rather than in a plane, I wouldn't want to do it again - my brain wasn't functioning at all, and I just did nothing until the rescue boat picked me up a few tens of seconds later; all the stuff to do with righting the capsized boat and sailing off, which I can do perfectly well in warm water and have done more than once in anger, just vanished. And of course on that occasion I was wearing all the right gear for falling into cold water off a boat - which you won't be wearing for a flight above trees-and-lakes.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scooter boy
IMHO Something is inherently wrong with the design if essential control surfaces are falling off rendering the aircraft unflyable.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soay,
I find the article fascinating from a number of points that emerge. In particular, IO540's point re the uselesness of PPL spin training, and the clarity of the bit that sets out examples of incompatible spin recovery methods for different aircraft types. One example is that the PA38 recovery method will fail to recover a Firefly from a spin.
Nevertheless, whilst I was quoting an opinion gained from varied sources, this definative document does to me confirm my original statement. Several times it emphases that the discovered best method could not be relied on, and that you could have lost too much height finding this to then use the 'chute.
But, re IO's point, the large majority of stall/spin fatals start from a height from which neither spin recovery nor the 'chute would work.
The whole purpose of the paper seems to be to justfy removing the spin recovery method from the POH (AFM = approved flight manual = POH).
I'm in no way critical of this, nor of the Cirrus in general. If you want an aircraft with that type of mission profile, I think its super.
Mike.
I find the article fascinating from a number of points that emerge. In particular, IO540's point re the uselesness of PPL spin training, and the clarity of the bit that sets out examples of incompatible spin recovery methods for different aircraft types. One example is that the PA38 recovery method will fail to recover a Firefly from a spin.
Nevertheless, whilst I was quoting an opinion gained from varied sources, this definative document does to me confirm my original statement. Several times it emphases that the discovered best method could not be relied on, and that you could have lost too much height finding this to then use the 'chute.
But, re IO's point, the large majority of stall/spin fatals start from a height from which neither spin recovery nor the 'chute would work.
The whole purpose of the paper seems to be to justfy removing the spin recovery method from the POH (AFM = approved flight manual = POH).
I'm in no way critical of this, nor of the Cirrus in general. If you want an aircraft with that type of mission profile, I think its super.
Mike.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't lose sight of the fact that the fella who deployed the parachute whose account is linked in post#6 had an undiagnosed/unexpected blackout and when he came to not only was he 'plummetting' but his right leg had gone numb. (And he subsequently turned out to have a brain tumour).
It is a fact that major incapacitating 'strokes' can often be preceded by mini-strokes:
IMHO he did the right thing to pull the plunger: who was to say he wasn't going to have another (pretty big; totally incapacitating) stroke while he was b*ggering about in naff visibility trying to sort himself out, with the adrenalin surge the event was causing shoving his blood pressure up still further?
I'd have pulled too.
Cusco
It is a fact that major incapacitating 'strokes' can often be preceded by mini-strokes:
IMHO he did the right thing to pull the plunger: who was to say he wasn't going to have another (pretty big; totally incapacitating) stroke while he was b*ggering about in naff visibility trying to sort himself out, with the adrenalin surge the event was causing shoving his blood pressure up still further?
I'd have pulled too.
Cusco
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is would you pop the chute if this happened to you, or would you go for the forced landing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the plane in the cable strike have a chute?
If there was an obvious landing opportunity, however short, I'd probably go for it and not pop the chute. If over water, dense woodland or mountains I'd pop it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did watch the video, and I hear the pilot referring to pulling the chute, but the plane involved didn't appear to be a type which has a chute. But then I know little about the many different types.
If the timing on the movie is real, he was on the ground very quickly, which suggests he didn't have much time to mess about looking for landing sites.
If the timing on the movie is real, he was on the ground very quickly, which suggests he didn't have much time to mess about looking for landing sites.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes MikeJ that is the usual advice
Over the sea, all advice I have ever seen is that in significant waves, 'land' along them, whatever the wind direction. Wave height will not be relevant.
But if you are at sea level in that sort of sea then wave height is very relevant. A large swell will be obvious from height - the sea superimposed on it often is not. So you line up with the major visible element and then presuming you are able to land exactly in line with the moving wave (moving sideways relative to the aircraft) you notice the sea and the small waves running in a different direction - and so making the height of the major swell rise and fall by the same amount.
Wave height suddenly becomes very relevant. So given the choice of contacting the water at 15kts odd downward versus 60 plus forward what is the preference? The contact areas are going to have the same effect - the airframes stops pretty much 'dead'.
Over the sea, all advice I have ever seen is that in significant waves, 'land' along them, whatever the wind direction. Wave height will not be relevant.
But if you are at sea level in that sort of sea then wave height is very relevant. A large swell will be obvious from height - the sea superimposed on it often is not. So you line up with the major visible element and then presuming you are able to land exactly in line with the moving wave (moving sideways relative to the aircraft) you notice the sea and the small waves running in a different direction - and so making the height of the major swell rise and fall by the same amount.
Wave height suddenly becomes very relevant. So given the choice of contacting the water at 15kts odd downward versus 60 plus forward what is the preference? The contact areas are going to have the same effect - the airframes stops pretty much 'dead'.