Pilots and Parachutes. (Merged)

[smarthawke]

The Cirrus strops actually attach to the top engine mounts aft of the firewall. An interesting point is the strops are supposed to be replaced every 10 years (IIRC) so there must be some early Cirri coming up to needing a fuselage re-glassing and respray when the strops are removed unless they can be removed from inside, or pulled through.

Another problem is for the fire and rescue services - working through the doorway of a bent Cirrus fuselage with a potentially unstable rocket and the strops running underneath the doorway.

The C150 with a BRS fitted was shown on video demonstrating how hard it would touch down. The bottom of the fuse hit the floor, that's how far the gear legs bent. Cessna 150 seats aren't built the same as Cirri ones....

The weight of a BRS could be used for 10 gallons of fuel and whilst there no doubt are times it would save lives it isn't the toal answer. For instance, structural failure? Best you hope the failed structure (broken wing) isn't going to stop the rocket, parachute and lines deploying and behaving as advertised.

[SNS3Guppy]

if it saves lives on the rare occasion that it is used is it worth it?

Of course, if equipment can be useful in a drive to save lives, it ought to find application. However, improperly used and used without proper training, a parachute can be a dangerous device. As you stated, as a D license jumper, you understand what happens if one allows a container to open in the airplane, or a piece of fabric or a pilot chute to get out the door. Failure to protect handles virtually guarantees a fatality...not just for the user, but for everyone on board.

A parachute is a system, not just a passive piece of equipment. It has to be used with proper procedures, and has emergency procedures which must be done properly and in order...and performing the wrong procedure or failure to recognize the proper type of malfunction can turn a salvagable situation into a fatal one very quickly. This is even more crucial in the use of a parachute for emergency operations, especially for those who might elect to use them at low altitudes, or use them in cases when such use isn't warranted.

A good example if improper use are the majority of the Cirrus CAPS deployments...strongly suggesting that pilots have placed themselves in dangerous positions because of the equipment on board. The parachute then becomes a panic button, and is subsequently used under conditions when they ought not. A pilot that elects to fly in weather and loses control deploys a parachute or exits the airplane...he has pushed the "panic button." Unfortunately, he's also elected to make a parachute descent under conditions when one should never make a parachute jump...the parachute has lulled him into making two very bad decisions, either of which could easily be fatal, to say nothing of having abandoned an airplane over a populace which had no choice in his decision making process.

I have yet to make a planned or unplanned descent using one - in the same way that I don't smack my head violently against the tailplane of the Yak whilst wearing a Gentex helmet to make sure I'll be familiar with the experience should I need to jump over the side, or spend a couple of hours bobbing about in a life raft in the North Atlantic to be sure I understand what exposure feels like - I fully expect that should I ever need to use an emergency parachute, it will be a violent, brutally painful experience that will almost certainly result in a couple of broken legs, but that the experience will be preferable to the alternative - frankly, you'd have to be mad to want to use one.

I own two parachute rigs, and far from "mad to use one," I find making a sport jump a highly desirable aeronautical activity, and simply another facet of general aviation. One flies a canopy and one flies one's body in freefall every bit as much as one flies a single engine Cessna, a sailplane, a gyroplane, or a helicopter, using aerodynamic principles and control inputs.

A big difference exists between wearing one's protective helmet, and wearing a parachute system. Your helmet won't deploy in flight and potentially destroy your aircraft and kill you. Your helmet won't experience malfunctions that can kill you. Your helmet is designed to provide limited blunt trauma protection, not blossom into a flying device which you will operate and manipulate completely independent of your aircraft, to fly to a landing position on the ground.

I frequently wear a helmet while executing pilot duties, too...and unlike you, I've had occasion to test mine, and use mine. In fact, on a regular basis, my helmet is used to protect me from injuries during violent maneuvering when my head may strike the aircraft canopy...and it sometimes does, as well as protection provided during ground impact or a crash (which it has also done).

Your helmet does not require frequent inspection and rebuilding. A parachute requires frequent inspection and repacking. Your helmet does not require operation of handles, releases, controls, whereas a parachute system does. Your helmet does not become a flying machine. Your parachute does. Your helmet does not experience life threatening emergencies which require user correction to prevent injury or death. Your parachute system certainly can.

I carry a firearm, and am required to demonstrate proficiency with the firearm, as well as a working knowledge of the principles and legalities of use of force. Several of my employers, including my current one, have required the carriage of rafts and survival equipment on board the equipment. Accordingly, I have been required to undergo training and to demonstrate water survival, while wearing flying clothing, including righting an overturned raft, providing aid to others in the water, survival away from the raft, etc. I have a fire extinguisher on board, and have not only used it on aircraft fires, but have been required to undergo training in the proper use thereof...to include demonstrating putting out a fire using the extinguisher.

I recently underwent recurrent training. Prior to arriving at the company headquarters for classroom and then simulator training, I was required to demonstrate in the airplane a working knowledge of use of all the emergency exits, equipment, etc...right down to physically opening each kind of exit, retrieving and donning emergency equipment (including onboard firefighting gear), and so forth. You see the point. One might take that example to the extreme and ask if we're required to deploy emergency slides or escape reels...the answer is "no." Due to the cost (hundreds of thousands of dollars) involved in blowing all the slides, we don't do that. The slides undergo regular inspections, however, and even the escape reels must undergo regular drop tests with weights, and must be individually maintained and their wear, use and life limits closely monitored. There's a big difference between getting out of an airplane in flight and freefalling clear in an emergency situation and then deploying a canopy to a successful landing, and jumping onto a rubber slide on a stationary aircraft on the ground.

You shouldn't anticipate a violent parachute jump...it's not the jump, nor the opening, that should be your concern. Neither should the landing be a concern. Being able to get out, get stable, or know when you don't have time to get stable, deploy, recognize a malfunction, recognize a good canopy, clear a malfunction, cut away (if applicable), and maneuver and land the canopy around obstacles such as powerlines, etc...these are critical things you should know and understand not only regarding parachutes in general, but for your specific system. The differences between a round parachute and a ram-air parachute, for example, are significant, as are the differences in their control under normal and abnormal conditions...even releasing one's self or collapsing the canopy...crucial of their own accord in the event of a landing under windy conditions or landing in water. Even a landing in water requires specific training; your helmet won't drown you...but your parachute most definitely can.

A parachute is a full aeronautical system, just like your parachute. You check out on a new airplane, and you receive flight instruction and must demonstrate proficiency in learning to fly. The same should absolutely apply to the use of a parachute.

[execExpress]

"A good example if improper use are the majority of the Cirrus CAPS deployments...strongly suggesting that pilots have placed themselves in dangerous positions because of the equipment on board."
=================================================
Can you direct us to evidence supporting this "strong suggestiveness" and assertions of "majority being improper use" please?

[eharding]

With all due respect to SN3Guppy and Skyhawk Pilot, both self-confessed sport parachutists, I maintain my position that you have to be several iced buns and a couple of pies short of a picnic to want to make a parachute descent on a purely voluntary basis - I note SN3Guppy in a previous post recounts his hospitalisation after one particularly unfortunate event, which in itself doesn't act as an advertisement. However, I recognise that my chosen pursuit, competition aerobatics, might well be regarded by some as being in picnic hamper content deficiency territory, but each to their own.

As regards the comment about helmets not needing frequent inspection and rebuilding - I can only say having experienced the quality of soldering and component fit on an eye-wateringly expensive custom lid from a certain Californian company, that certainly isn't the case - not that the products of other manufacturers seem to be much better, and at least Gentex spares and after-market replacements are easy and cheap to obtain (I heartily recommend the services of Oregon Aero, should you need them).

I suspect than some form of head protection might save a lot more lives in accidents involving typical GA touring types rather than the provision of personal or airframe parachutes, but that is probably another thread's worth on it's own.

[SNS3Guppy]

I note SN3Guppy in a previous post recounts his hospitalisation after one particularly unfortunate event, which in itself doesn't act as an advertisement.

That particular jump occured in strong winds in mountainous terrain with a lot of desert plants such as cactus, and the impact point was on a cliff. Not normal conditions for sport skydives, and an unfortunate result of several culminating events which don't need discussion right now.

I've experienced forced landings, inflight engine and equipment failures, aircraft fires, and other inflight and ground emergencies...do these then mean one shouldn't engage in flight in an airplane?

Parachutes fail. Equipment fails. One should still be fully trained in it's use, and this speaks more to a need for adequate training to handle unusual events...a parachute as much as anything else. After all, we don't train for the times things work properly. We train for those times when they don't.

Can you direct us to evidence supporting this "strong suggestiveness" and assertions of "majority being improper use" please?

Yes. Nearly every CAPS deployment in Cirrus aircraft, for starters. That should suffice.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes. Nearly every CAPS deployment in Cirrus aircraft, for starters. That should suffice.

At the least generous 5/14 hardly qualifies as "nearly every". With a little generousity not even half fall into this category.

[eharding]

Originally Posted by SN3Guppy

That particular jump occured in strong winds in mountainous terrain with a lot of desert plants such as cactus, and the impact point was on a cliff. Not normal conditions for sport skydives, and an unfortunate result of several culminating events which don't need discussion right now.

I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall at the briefing for that one. "The wind is Oh-Sh!t knots gusting Dear-Sweet-Lord knots, the cactus plants are here, here and here, and the northern edge of the drop zone is roughly 800 feet higher than the southern edge. Any questions?"

Originally Posted by SN3Guppy

I've experienced forced landings, inflight engine and equipment failures, aircraft fires, and other inflight and ground emergencies...do these then mean one shouldn't engage in flight in an airplane?

Well, that depends on the period of time over which these events occurred - if as I understand, they were over several decades and several tens of thousands of hours of flight time, then I think we can just put that down to the law of averages; if, on the other hand, they were all to occur within the space of a couple of weeks, then I'd say there would be a ground frost in Hell before I'd get in an airframe maintained by your engineering organisation, and in fact that the firearms which you tell us you're licensed to hold might well be used to good effect on the individuals within that organisation.

[Mark1234]

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

You shouldn't anticipate a violent parachute jump...it's not the jump, nor the opening, that should be your concern. Neither should the landing be a concern. Being able to get out, get stable, or know when you don't have time to get stable, deploy, recognize a malfunction, recognize a good canopy, clear a malfunction, cut away (if applicable), and maneuver and land the canopy around obstacles such as powerlines, etc...these are critical things you should know and understand not only regarding parachutes in general, but for your specific system.

In all seriousness, how much of that is applicable to an emergency parachute vs a sport jumper?

Everytime I go up in a glider I strap on one of these irvine (or similar) slimpacks.. They're repacked every 3 months, the aircraft is designed such that I have a reasonable chance of escape, but it's very much a last ditch. I understand the canopy is round, quite small, and the descent rate is "about equivalent to jumping off a double decker bus" i.e. expect broken bones. It's maybe the stuff of legend, but allegedly the gliding club did do an exercise where a few people were trained and jumped under supervision - with about 50% ending up in hospital, so they stopped that idea.

So, if all else fails, scramble clear, pull the red handle and hope. No reserve. If it doesn't deploy, you're stuffed, if it's not stable, you're stuffed, if, etc., etc! It would be useful to know how to kill the canopy - I'm thinking grab one set of lines and pull. I don't believe there's any steering on them..

That said, they do work - there have been some miraculous escapes, even from very low level midairs. But then the gliding folk have this habit of congregating under likely looking clouds, all going round in circles at very close quaters...

[SNS3Guppy]

In all seriousness, how much of that is applicable to an emergency parachute vs a sport jumper?

Everytime I go up in a glider I strap on one of these irvine (or similar) slimpacks.. They're repacked every 3 months, the aircraft is designed such that I have a reasonable chance of escape, but it's very much a last ditch. I understand the canopy is round, quite small, and the descent rate is "about equivalent to jumping off a double decker bus" i.e. expect broken bones. It's maybe the stuff of legend, but allegedly the gliding club did do an exercise where a few people were trained and jumped under supervision - with about 50% ending up in hospital, so they stopped that idea.

Very relevant. It's easy to believe the myths about round parachutes, but goes to prove that clearly the user has no idea what to expect, how to operaterate, how to land, what to do with wire or powerline landing, tree landing, water landing, or even how to do a parachute landing fall. How do you imagine we survived jumping round parachutes all these years? Expect broken bones? This is a cavalier attitude regarding use of a lifesaving device in sheer ignorance of it's function or proper use.

Having jumped and landed round parachutes, including round reserves myself, I can tell you that if 50% of the jumpers are winding up with broken bones...there's a serious issue. It's not with the parachute, either. Next time use proper training and that won't happen. One should never use a parachute that's insufficient for one's loaded weight...which includes the weight of the jumper/user in all his gear, and that of the parachute assembly as well. Jump with too small a parachute then one takes unnecessary risks...but this comes back to proper training. One has no business exceeding the weight limits for an aircraft, either. Same principle applies.

So, if all else fails, scramble clear, pull the red handle and hope. No reserve. If it doesn't deploy, you're stuffed, if it's not stable, you're stuffed, if, etc., etc! It would be useful to know how to kill the canopy - I'm thinking grab one set of lines and pull. I don't believe there's any steering on them..

No, don't guess. No, don't hope. No reserve? It is the reserve. You've got one shot at it; get it right. If it doesn't deploy, you're "stuffed?" Hardly. What to do about a floating pilot chute; it comes off the pack but fails to inflate in the burble behind your back? With proper training, one would know to reach back there and launch it into the slip stream, or dip a shoulder and let the slipstream take it off your back...not knowing that could kill you.

If it's not stable, you say...but it's you that should be getting stable...knowing how to do that is important. Knowing when not to wait is also important. Be unstable and you'll run into the problem I had during an unstable exit while carrying a pumpkin under one arm on halloween...a pilot chute bridle wrapped around one arm and a closed canopy; a total malfunction. Do this on a reserve, unstable, and wind up with a horseshoe malfunction that can't be fixed. You've just killed yourself by failing to get stable.

If it malfunctions you can't do anything about it, you say? Not at all true. Again, particular to the type of canopy you have...many pilot rigs now employ square ram-air canopies...it could be a line-over or it could be an end-cell closure...problems that can dealt with, and should be dealt with.

Not controllable? You mean you don't know how to steer the canopy? This is a big problem. It's nearly inconceivable that one would undertake learning to control an airplane, but strap on a parachute in complete ignorance..."I think I pull this little handle here."

This is aviation. We know. We don't guess.

That device is there to save your life. Isn't your life worth the time it takes to use it properly? Why wear it at all?

At the least generous 5/14 hardly qualifies as "nearly every". With a little generousity not even half fall into this category.

Most certainly do fall into this category. A sampling of Wikipedia's listing of these events, for example, cites the following:

As of April 2007, the CAPS has been deployed over two hundred times (some still under investigation):

1. October 2002, Texas: detached aileron Preflighting airplanes prevents needing to use panic button parachutes, and prevents ailerons from detaching in flight. Note that taken from that NTSB report, the following Cirrus statement is identified: The CAPS deployment is expected to result in the destruction of the airframe, and possible severe injury or death to the occupants.

2. April 2003, British Columbia: loss of control in turbulence (aircraft C-GEMC), 4 uninjured Putting the airplane in places it shouldn't be, such as in high winds at night over the mountains...eliminates the need to use the panic button. High winds over the mountains at night, incidentally, is exactly the wrong place to use a parachute.

3. April 2004, Florida: instrument failure in IFR conditions, 1 uninjured In the real world, we fly the airplane down and train for partial panel situations. A pilot incapable of doing this, who goes into conditions beyond his capabilities based on having the panic button parachute in hand...should never have been there in the first place. An improper preflight failed to drain the static lines, resulting in instrument problems.

4. September 2004, California: loss of control in high-altitude climb above clouds, 2 uninjured Again, a situation that the pilot should never have been in; one flies beyond one's capabilities, one uses the panic button...one has unnecessarily gone where one shouldn't have been and used what didn't need to be used...when the airplane could simply have been flown to a landing. Again, we're not even talking about a broken airpalne here...just a pilot who elected to deploy a parachute on a perfectly good airplane. This brain surgeon-rocket scientist flew into a Level 5 thunderstorm...not really the best place to fly, shows poor judgement, and certainly a very poor place to deploy a parachute canopy.

5. January 2005, California: parachute deployed above design limits, pilot fatality (unknown if intentionally activated) Didn't do this guy a lot of good, did it? A departure in icing conditions and IMC by a very low time pilot who lost control in ice...shouldn't have been there, was beyond his capabilities, didn't help him...and would he have made the flight without that useless panic button there to lure him into a dangerous area?

6. June 2005, New York: pilot incapacitated from undiagnosed brain tumor, 1 injured A possibly valid use, and one of the few in which the parachute didn't lure or goad the pilot into doing something stupid. This case is clearly by far in the minority. The pilot lost control, but had recovered control of the aircraft by 1,700' before deploying the parachute and making a forced landing under canopy in a river, fracturing his vertebrae.

7. January 2006, Alabama: loss of control after pilot flew into icing, 3 uninjured Once again, pilots who flew beyond their own capabilities and that of the aircraft, relying not on airmanship, not on flying a good airplane to a safe landing, but upon the panic button.

8. February 2006, South Dakota: pilot reported disorientation, 2 uninjured Pilot disorientation, again. A common theme. Not a broken airplane...just pilots who shouldn't have been there in the first place, flew beyond their own capabilities, and who then used the panic button to get back down. Did these individuals fly to a place they should never have gone because they had the security of the panic button? A common theme with the vast majority of the deployments.

9. August 2006, Indiana: parachute deployed three miles from departure end of runway, aircraft landed in retention pond, parachute was deployed by a passenger because the pilot had fainted, pilot fatality, 3 passengers injured While wikipedia states that it was pilot incapacitation, it wasn't. The aircraft was loaded out of CG, the pilot repeatedly stalled the aircraft, the pilot asked the passenger to pull the handle, and the pilot was killed and the passengers injured. The pilot struggled to fly the airplane and badly botched it into a fatal mishap...there was nothing wrong with the airplane other than pilot error in a poor CG with an overloaded baggage compartment. Panic button and an unnecessary crash and loss of life...in fact it wasn't the CG which caused the crash, but the deployment of the CAPS system, and a pilot who couldn't handle the airplane. Chalk it up once again to the same majority of the incidents...pilot error, unnecessary use, and a system that took the pilot to places he wasn't capable of going and to a place where he never should have been.

10. September 2006, Jamaica: pilot activated parachute under unknown circumstances, 4 uninjured VMC, pilot report of engine trouble, and lucky they lived at all. Panic button applied at 4,500', and a subsequent landing in a ravine. In the real world, when we have a functioning airplane, we land the airplane, rather than abandoning control to a parachute attached to the airplane, which the manufacturer states is expected to destroy the airplane, and possibly cause severe injury or death to the occupants...however this falls in the same category as the vast majority of other CAPS deployments...a panic button deployment.

11. September 2006, Colorado: Plane destroyed with 2 fatalities after reports of icing problems at 14,000 feet. A preliminary report from the NTSB contains the sentence "A witness in the area observed a portion of the fuselage being drug by the deployed aircraft recovery parachute." According to the NTSB...The pilot's improper in-flight planning and decision making resulting in an inadvertent encounter with severe icing conditions during cruise flight and subsequent loss of aircraft control. Contributing factors include the pilot's failure to obtain a weather briefing, the thunderstorm, conditions conducive for structural icing, and the pilot's failure to deploy the parachute recovery system. The Cirrus isn't approved for flight into known ice, nor into thunderstorms...not is it advised for low time pilots.

12. February 2007, NSW, Australia: Fuel line pressure sensor connection cap separated and loss of pressure stopped the engine. After an approach to a freeway forced landing, CAPS was activated, the rocket fired, but got tangled with the empennage resulting in parachute undeployment. The plane impacted ground in nose down attitude seriously injuring both occupants. The pilot was setting up for a landing and pulled the panic button anyway...it failed, partially entangling with the empennage, and the airplane veered away from the road, resulting in injuries and damage. Chalk it up to another failure...both to deploy properly, and a deployment that never should have been made in the first place...again, part of the vast majority.

13. April 2007, Luna, New Mexico: The pilot experienced spatial disorientation following loss of the airspeed indicator. After the terrain warning went off, CAPS was activated and the plane came to rest in a forested area. A low-time, inexperienced pilot out of his depth, in a place he shouldn't have been, who lost control. Not because of the airspeed indicator, as that had returned and was functioning when he applied the panic button...he was simply losing control because he wasn't capable and shouldn't have been there in the first place...like most of the other deployments...which are, in fact, the vast majority (as I correctly stated before).

14. August 2007, Nantucket Island, Mass: Two people aboard, one suffered serious injury after their Cirrus made a parachute landing on Nantucket. FAA spokeswoman Holly Baker said the Cirrus aircraft apparently was trying to land at Nantucket under visual flight rules when the weather deteriorated. She said the pilot used the plane's parachute system and the Cirrus made a hard landing, apparently hitting the guy wires of a LORAN tower in the village of Siasconset, about five miles northeast of the Nantucket airport. Surprise, surprise...same story, different day, pilot beyond his capabilities in a place he shouldn't have been, lost control, used the panic button...again. See the trend? Pilots resorting to the panic button when they shouldn't have been there in the first place...over, and over, and over again. Nothing new here, but in the vast majority, all the same.

[chrisN]

In the 1970’s, 7 people from my gliding club went on a parachute course for a weekend, which culminated in one real jump each (I believe with static lines to ensure that they did not forget to pull the D-ring).

One was injured (ankles, came back on crutches), one had a bad exit and started falling on his back so the ‘chute deployed under his armpit until he found out how to roll over, one went through a barn roof (I was told – but only bruising resulted), and two others had non-standard events, so only 2 out of 7 had normal uneventful jumps, IIRC.

I expect that is an atypically high rate of untoward incidents in jump training, but many of us then decided that we would take the remote chance of having to use a parachute in anger with only our normal oral briefing – which happily has worked for almost all the small number of real emergency glider pilot bale-outs. No one from my club has ever had to jump from a glider for real. I don’t have accurate numbers for total UK gliding, but it is less than one a year on average, in over 200,000 flights p.a..

I would like to thank Guppy for the very informative postings.

Chris N.

[SNS3Guppy]

In the 1970’s, 7 people from my gliding club went on a parachute course for a weekend, which culminated in one real jump each (I believe with static lines to ensure that they did not forget to pull the D-ring).

One was injured (ankles, came back on crutches), one had a bad exit and started falling on his back so the ‘chute deployed under his armpit until he found out how to roll over, one went through a barn roof (I was told – but only bruising resulted), and two others had non-standard events, so only 2 out of 7 had normal uneventful jumps, IIRC.

Chris, with modern accelerated free-fall training techniques, with better methods of training, including tandem jumps that can coach a jumper from exit to landing, and with radios and better parachutes...these things need not be a concern any more.

[Fuji Abound]

SNS3Guppy

You must have a very jaundiced view of your fellow pilot?

I am not sure there are many pilots that would skip the pre-flight whilst thinking "not to worry, if something falls off the parachute will get me out of trouble."

I also dont think many pilots continue into IMC when not qualified to do so because they have a chute.

Pilots will go on making bad judgement calls as long as there are pilots. There may even be a very few pilots who set off on a trip they wouldnt have otherwise contemplated making because they had a chute. However, in the main, the pilot didnt make the bad call because he thought he could pull the chute, he made the bad call because of inexperience.

The Cirrus is just another example of an "advanced" aircraft that lulls the pilot into thinking it is more capable aircraft than it is, the chute makes very little difference and is not the factor you believe it to be.

In fact I'd take a bet with you that the majority of these accidents would have happened just the same if the aircraft didnt have a chute.

[SNS3Guppy]

I also dont think many pilots continue into IMC when not qualified to do so because they have a chute.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The vast majority of the CAPS deployments, however, strongly suggest otherwise...as shown here. Virtually every case has been pilots going where they ought not, then unnecessarily resorting to the panic button.

In fact I'd take a bet with you that the majority of these accidents would have happened just the same if the aircraft didnt have a chute.

You'd lose, of course, because in absence of the ability to alter history, you'll be forced to concede that these mishaps did involve the parachute system, and in several cases were caused by the parachute system. The one, you'll recall, which Cirrus states should be "expected to result in the destruction of the airframe, and possible severe injury or death to the occupants." That parachute system.

Most pilots were very inexperienced, several hundred hours. What we have here are people who can afford to buy an airplane, but not the common sense to go with it, who arrogantly step well beyond their capabilities. Cirrus has used the parachute system as a major selling point...look what we have here...a safety device that will save your life (or result in the destruction of the airframe and possible severe injury or death to the occupants)...buy this product...it looks just like your car inside...it's modern, safe...and...did we forget to mention the parachute?

This is a common enticement. I see pilots all the time who think it's okay to fly light airplanes in the ice...because it's got hot props, or boots, or...pick your poison. It's got TKS...everything will be okay. Just like having a parachute, icing equipment is a justification in many cases to do something stupid...remain in ice when at best the equipment should be used for getting out of an encounter, and never to intentionally enter it. Just yesterday I spoke with the owner of a Seneca II who was waiting for a hot windscreen plate so he could go blast off into the ice.

Do parachutes entice pilots to do stupid things? Yes. Civil pilots and military pilots both. Big interiors entice pilots to load the airplane up...I can't count the number of times I've heard said of the Cessna 182 or 206, "It's a big truck. Anything you can fit inside, it can carry." And pilots do. Give a pilot an inch, often as not, he will take a mile...and yes, I do have a VERY low opinion of pilots in general. I have long maintained that 90% of the pilots out there aren't worth their weight in dirty salt...and based on global experience in nearly every facet of aviation out there so far, I'm still convinced this is true.

Make your bet, then.

The Cirrus is just another example of an "advanced" aircraft that lulls the pilot into thinking it is more capable aircraft than it is, the chute makes very little difference and is not the factor you believe it to be.

Again, the data shows otherwise, as do the advertisements and the comments of owners by and large. Do a survey to find out how many though the CAPS system was a factor in their decision to purchase, and in the support of their spouse or partners...and you'll find that the vast majority see it as a major selling point.

As far as advanced...it's another puddle jumper with curvy lines and a high price tag...that's about it.

[Mark1234]

Ok, so I should know better than to stick my neck out but at least that's prompted some learning:

Datasheet here: http://www.airborne-sys.com/pdfs/_AS-Website_Marketing_PDFs/11-EMERGENCY%20ESCAPE%20SYSTEMS/Parachute%20Assembly%20650%20range%20(Silhouette)/Silhouette.pdf

So, it does have steering (and yes I do know what to do with those, or at least think I do. Have on occasion flown a paraglider). I'm slightly confused now as to what is meant by stabilised - I'd taken that to mean the canopy being stable / not. If you mean stable freefall.. well, all my advice has been of the don't delay, pull the handle before you start tumbling or anything. Given it's somewhat rare to be >5000ft agl, and few pilots are practiced at freefall, that *seems* reasonable - I'm not sure how much time you'd have to mess around.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with round parachutes. As per the above link, at my circa 100kg fully loaded, that's a descent rate just shy of 7m/s. Nothing to do with roundness, everything to do with size/practicality tradeoff. Broken bones is probably an exaggeration, but that's not what I would consider comfortable or gentle, and not dissimilar to the bus anaolgy.

Very interested in how one should stop the thing once on the ground. Also mulling over the 12000ft max opening alt, and what one would do in the intervening with no experience of freefall..

Rightly or wrongly I think most folks (myself included) consider it a bit like an airbag in a car - to be avoided at all times. If needed, it may save your life, but don't count on it.

[chrisN]

Guppy, Skyhawk (and others), I appreciate your comments, but at my age and with a long-term leg disability, I am not now going to go into any physical training in learning to jump. With a less than 1% chance of having to use one in a long gliding career, most of which is now behind me, I shall take my chance along with the small numbers of glider pilots who have actually had to jump, and hope I will cope as well as they did if it comes to it.

By coincidence, there is a very active correspondence (98 posts so far) on a gliding website at present. Adherents of square chutes are telling everyone how good they are, people who have actually jumped with round chutes are saying they worked okay for them.

As emergency chutes are typically lifed for 15 to 20 years, replacement purchases are pretty infrequent.

Chris N.

[SNS3Guppy]

Rounds vs. squares: I've jumped both, in a wide variety of types and configurations. There's no question that a ram-air (square) parachute is a vast improvement over a round canopy when it comes to landing, controllability, choice of where you'll land, how hard you land, the ability to flare, modern design, etc. However, a square canopy also has disadvantages, too. By and large, the advantages well outweigh any drawbacks.

[poss]

Turning the focus back to airframe fitted chutes for a moment, the Cirrus aircraft that have them are designed to absorb the shock, as someone has already mentioned. This includes seats, airframe, landing gear and so on.... a year or so ago a guy deployed his chute over water when his engine failed, he broke his back on impact as the landing gear wasn't able to do what it was designed to do. The guy had the chance to glide to a nearby beach and carry out a forced landing yet thought hmm I'll deploy my chute without even considering landing the aircraft, in my opinion they give a false sense of security and I would hazard a guess that many people that own aircraft that harbour such devices wouldn't know the correct time to use them.
Fitting one to an aeroplane that wasn't designed to withstand a vertical landing would probably kill the occupant, someone mentioned that Cirrus say the landing is like falling from 10 feet, this is achieved with the combination of features to cushion the fall... features not available to normal aeroplanes so its undoubtedly safer to carry out a proper forced landing.

[Fuji Abound]

Poss

It has been suggested that in the incident to which you refer the pilot was applying power to manoeuver the aircraft. This may have resulted in more impact energy being transmitted to the pilot than would have been the case had power not been applied.

In the event the pilot suffered relatively minor impact damage to two vertebra, such that he was able to vacate the aircraft and swim to the shore and, as it transpired, was snow boarding within three months of the accident.

Clearly the undercarriage will absorb energy however I am not aware how significantly the transfer of energy is increased following a landing on water. My guess is it is not substantial. The other crumple zones will work as intended and whilst the spats will be forced off they present enough surface area that the undercarriage will absorb some of the energy. The wings and tail plane may absorb more energy than would be the case with land. However, I suspect the dynamics are complicated with numerous variables. One water landing does little to provide us with any substantive evidence.

Do we drive differently because we have air bags, crumple zones and anti lock brakes? I doubt it.

Do we fly differently because we have a chute? I doubt we do?

Inexperience puts pilots in danger. New, fast and shiny aircraft with modern avionics lull pilots into thinking the aircraft can make up for what the pilot lacks in experience. However, that’s why the insurance companies now insist on better training for pilots flying these aircraft. Ultimately better trained pilots flying more capable aircraft with chutes in the last resort enhances safety. I’d not be turning back the clock. It might not be the perfect solution, but it’s a lot better than what we had.

You only need to ask, and I tell you how to make a completely safe aircraft.

[chrisN]

Well, I must admit that this video of a square chute opening shows it’s quite quick:

http://www.justsoar.com/public/2NO/ExtremeSports.wmv

(The link was posted on gliding web site ras, which has a vigorous correspondence on round vs square – 127 posts so far.)

Chris N.

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Skyhawk Pilot

Graham Hesketh on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thats ME

I have to admit my first reaction on seeing that photo was a flashback to that scene from Forrest Gump, when Forrest jumps over the side of the side of the trawler.

"Yes, Graham, I know you were keen to be first at the club barbeque, but what did you do with the 172?........(looks up)...oh, no. Not again...you tw@t" (sound of a furiously overspeeding propellor ends abruptly will a dull thud)