BRS equipped plane for training
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 5
From: The Wild West (UK)
Hmm... For the sake of argument:
-A human life is generally reckoned to be worth about £2,000,000.
-An average airframe is worth about £200,000.
-After an engine failure your chances of surviving a forced landing are 8/10.
-After pulling the chute your chances of surviving are 9/10.
-2 POB
-The aeroplane is completely written off after every chute deployment. It is undamaged after every survivable landing.
An economist would pull the chute every time the engine stopped (10 pulls cost £6 million; ten forced landings cost over £8 million).
Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.
I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.
The other idea I often wonder about is how long it will be before we have a 'sentinel' to look after BRS deployment. Using GPS, accelerometers and a terrain database, it could work out whenever you were about to spin into the ground, or fly into terrain, then give you (say) a 5 second warning to do something about it or cancel the deployment.
-A human life is generally reckoned to be worth about £2,000,000.
-An average airframe is worth about £200,000.
-After an engine failure your chances of surviving a forced landing are 8/10.
-After pulling the chute your chances of surviving are 9/10.
-2 POB
-The aeroplane is completely written off after every chute deployment. It is undamaged after every survivable landing.
An economist would pull the chute every time the engine stopped (10 pulls cost £6 million; ten forced landings cost over £8 million).
Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.
I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.
The other idea I often wonder about is how long it will be before we have a 'sentinel' to look after BRS deployment. Using GPS, accelerometers and a terrain database, it could work out whenever you were about to spin into the ground, or fly into terrain, then give you (say) a 5 second warning to do something about it or cancel the deployment.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
I do not dispute that most powered aircraft have more energy to dissipate in a field landing than most gliders, but not usually 4 times. My glider stall speed, flaps down, is about 40 knots if I carry no water ballast (few field landing have that extra mass, but some do – e.g. brought down by rain/sink too fast to dump ballast).
My recommended approach speed is 50 knots (no wind) to 55 or more depending on wind strength.
My first private (shared) glider had stall about 25 knots (Olympia 2B), second about 33 knots (Ka6E). Others vary anywhere within that range, and a few even higher.
-------
I have previously posted that I would have a BRS if available for my glider, because mobility (medical cause) issues prevent probably use of my personal parachute. No scientific analysis of glider bale-outs, but anecdotal evidence (including Germany where they had far more glider parachute deployments) suggests that below 1000 feet, success is unlikely. Above 2000 feet, survival is almost always achieved. Roughly linear relationship from 0 to 100 percent between 1k and 2k feet.
If BRS is saving people a bit below 1000, as well as people like me who cannot get out in time for a personal chute to save them, it is an added benefit.
Unfortunately, I can’t have one in my glider. And the likeliest scenario for me to use it would be after a collision with a non-Flarm, non-transponder (PCAS detected) flying machine that my imperfect eyeball did not see in time. Just like the 6 people who died in 5 glider/GA collisions 1970-2009. Not many, but would have been nice to save them.
And a lot more died in GA/GA collisions. But you all know that, and most think it infinitesimally low so take no notice.
Chris N.
My recommended approach speed is 50 knots (no wind) to 55 or more depending on wind strength.
My first private (shared) glider had stall about 25 knots (Olympia 2B), second about 33 knots (Ka6E). Others vary anywhere within that range, and a few even higher.
-------
I have previously posted that I would have a BRS if available for my glider, because mobility (medical cause) issues prevent probably use of my personal parachute. No scientific analysis of glider bale-outs, but anecdotal evidence (including Germany where they had far more glider parachute deployments) suggests that below 1000 feet, success is unlikely. Above 2000 feet, survival is almost always achieved. Roughly linear relationship from 0 to 100 percent between 1k and 2k feet.
If BRS is saving people a bit below 1000, as well as people like me who cannot get out in time for a personal chute to save them, it is an added benefit.
Unfortunately, I can’t have one in my glider. And the likeliest scenario for me to use it would be after a collision with a non-Flarm, non-transponder (PCAS detected) flying machine that my imperfect eyeball did not see in time. Just like the 6 people who died in 5 glider/GA collisions 1970-2009. Not many, but would have been nice to save them.
And a lot more died in GA/GA collisions. But you all know that, and most think it infinitesimally low so take no notice.
Chris N.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.
I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.
I'm trying to be generous for the case for making a forced landing, but as I see it, the numbers are unlikely to work out with real data.
So, I've asked several insurance underwriters -- what would you say to a Cirrus pilot if they were considering pulling the parachute red handle?
Jim Anderson, VP of Starr Aviation Insurance and a Cirrus SR20 owner, stated unequivocally "Pull the CAPS handle! We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate!"
Others reminded me that often their most expensive claims are due to medical expenses. Factor that into your argument.
Cheers
Rick
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
But, SDbeach, you are in the USA.
Here, the market is much smaller (the total number of Cirruses is ~ 200 in all of Europe; perhaps 50-70 in the UK) and the insurers are already taking a hard line on what they perceive as pilots pulling the chute too readily.
We also have the National Health Service which, despite many many failings, does deliver competent emergency treatment, and that part is free (well, the average taxpayer pays about £1500/year towards it
).
Not long ago, the insurer for one UK Cirrus owner/group put up the deductible from ~ £3000 to £15000, after a well publicised chute pull (by somebody else) which was followed by the inevitable large insurance claim.
This is the other side of this debate. I know that "the proper attitude" in aviation is that safety, human life, etc, etc, always comes first [at this point one usually inserts the obligatory CAA safety sense leaflet editor approved aviation proverbs, like it is better being down and wishing you were up than being up and wishing you were down, and - this is a popular one on US pilot forums - the moment you have an emergency your plane is no longer owned by you and is owned by the insurance company, etc] but the reality seems to be that if you pull the chute in circumstances which were clearly favourable for a forced landing (lots of fields around, etc) you will find insurance a bit hard to find afterwards. That's probably OK if you are just renting, but few Cirrus pilots here are pure renters. Similarly, if you ice up at FL200 over mountains, stall, spin, and come down under the chute and then say you can't remember anything because of hypoxia, any insurer who knows the front end of a plane from the back end will have a bit of a view on it
The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.
I don't expect this debate will ever come anywhere near resolution. But if I had an engine failure in an SR22 I owned, and I saw loads of fields below, I would land in one of them. For ditching, forests, mountains, over fog/etc, I would use the chute.
Here, the market is much smaller (the total number of Cirruses is ~ 200 in all of Europe; perhaps 50-70 in the UK) and the insurers are already taking a hard line on what they perceive as pilots pulling the chute too readily.
We also have the National Health Service which, despite many many failings, does deliver competent emergency treatment, and that part is free (well, the average taxpayer pays about £1500/year towards it
).
Flying would get significantly more expensive, as the insurance companies would pay out £2,000,000 in the first case, but only £400,000 in the second, assuming the passengers never sue the insurance companies.
This is the other side of this debate. I know that "the proper attitude" in aviation is that safety, human life, etc, etc, always comes first [at this point one usually inserts the obligatory CAA safety sense leaflet editor approved aviation proverbs, like it is better being down and wishing you were up than being up and wishing you were down, and - this is a popular one on US pilot forums - the moment you have an emergency your plane is no longer owned by you and is owned by the insurance company, etc] but the reality seems to be that if you pull the chute in circumstances which were clearly favourable for a forced landing (lots of fields around, etc) you will find insurance a bit hard to find afterwards. That's probably OK if you are just renting, but few Cirrus pilots here are pure renters. Similarly, if you ice up at FL200 over mountains, stall, spin, and come down under the chute and then say you can't remember anything because of hypoxia, any insurer who knows the front end of a plane from the back end will have a bit of a view on it
The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.
I don't expect this debate will ever come anywhere near resolution. But if I had an engine failure in an SR22 I owned, and I saw loads of fields below, I would land in one of them. For ditching, forests, mountains, over fog/etc, I would use the chute.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The envelope for safe ejection in an ejector seat equipped aeroplane is also complex. For example, even a zero-zero seat is marginal stationary on the ground, whilst an old technology 0-90/Mk.4 seat which wouldn't give a survivable ejection under those circumstances, should be survivable on the runway at 100kn.
Neither would probably give a survivable ejection in a high rate of descent at low speed and a couple of hundred seat, either might - even inverted - at the same height witha 2000fpm climb.
I am quite sure that you are right SD that the specialist Cirrus training is important - this is a complex (small "c") aeroplane which requires detailed knowledge and trained observence of good practice.
However, I also suspect strongly that even amongst those who have accepted this appropriate training, a lot of Cirrus pilots simply aren't maintaining enough currency, or have good enough basic airmanship skills, so they rely on the CAPS.
Of course, there are poor pilots in other aeroplanes as well - but I suspect in many cases they aren't relying upon the emotional crutch of the CAPS system to let them plough on any any pilot with a grain of common sense would not.
G
Neither would probably give a survivable ejection in a high rate of descent at low speed and a couple of hundred seat, either might - even inverted - at the same height witha 2000fpm climb.
I am quite sure that you are right SD that the specialist Cirrus training is important - this is a complex (small "c") aeroplane which requires detailed knowledge and trained observence of good practice.
However, I also suspect strongly that even amongst those who have accepted this appropriate training, a lot of Cirrus pilots simply aren't maintaining enough currency, or have good enough basic airmanship skills, so they rely on the CAPS.
Of course, there are poor pilots in other aeroplanes as well - but I suspect in many cases they aren't relying upon the emotional crutch of the CAPS system to let them plough on any any pilot with a grain of common sense would not.
G
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From: uk
However, I also suspect strongly that even amongst those who have accepted this appropriate training, a lot of Cirrus pilots simply aren't maintaining enough currency, or have good enough basic airmanship skills, so they rely on the CAPS.
I also think / guess that the above group would be more likely to consider and use the Chute rather than land in an unknown field, would you agree Rick?
Then there is perhaps a significant amount of Cirrus pilots who for whatever reason do not want, do not feel need or can not afford a level of training in type, I believe this group is statistically at a higher risk of a fatality and also less likely to consider the use of the Chute, or use it when the chips are down, although they may well factor it in as added security or fail safe options in there minds.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From: uk
I don't expect this debate will ever come anywhere near resolution. But if I had an engine failure in an SR22 I owned, and I saw loads of fields below, I would land in one of them. For ditching, forests, mountains, over fog/etc, I would use the chute.
I respect all others opinions but I think it is hard to really form an opinion until you have had maybe xxx hundred hours with CAPS to compare with your previous experience and thinking, you never know you may even form an alternative opinion.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
A tweak of 007's post, in the spirit of fair play
G
This is a good point, the aircraft owners that attend regular refresher training, are active in a flying organisation, who have recurrent training including in the sim are categorically less likely to have a fatal accident or get into trouble in the first place, I am sure RIck will have some numbers.
...
Then there is perhaps a significant amount of aeroplane pilots who for whatever reason do not want, do not feel need or can not afford a level of training in type, I believe this group is statistically at a higher risk of a fatality and also less likely to consider the use of trained emergency procedures such as PFLs, pan calls, precautionary landings, or use emergency procedures when the chips are down, although they may well factor their availability in as added security or fail safe options in there minds.
...
Then there is perhaps a significant amount of aeroplane pilots who for whatever reason do not want, do not feel need or can not afford a level of training in type, I believe this group is statistically at a higher risk of a fatality and also less likely to consider the use of trained emergency procedures such as PFLs, pan calls, precautionary landings, or use emergency procedures when the chips are down, although they may well factor their availability in as added security or fail safe options in there minds.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.
Most Cirrus pilots I have met seem unaffected by BRS in deciding to make a flight. I am more the exception. I admit that I now fly direct at night rather than following roads I can see. I also fly over low IFR and over inhospitable terrain. If you avoid flying with those conditions then feel free to throw stones. if you fly IFR over ceilings less than several thousand feet and do it without BRS then don't knock me for doing the same and feeling better having BRS. BTW, I have flown IFR without BRS and have no problem doing so. It is a risk I am willing to accept. I just feel better with the extra out.
The accident history of the SR22 is not out of line with planes of similar mission. What I have seen is a group of pilots who are more interested in getting to the golf course than in flying itself. They are often not members of COPA. This seems less about Cirrus marketing than about pilots who want the latest and best go anywhere (in their eyes) plane. They show up as the VFR pilots who flew into IMC. Nothing new here. Go back 30 years and the plane will be different but there will be a similar group of pilots.
COPA members have a much lower fatality rate. Whether that is because COPA promotes safe flight or because more safety minded pilots are attracted to COPA I don't know. Rick has the numbers.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
The penalty for one mistake shouldn't be death.
BTW, how much is insurance in the USA for an SR22, hull value say $300k, pilot 500hrs, CPL/IR? I saw a survey on the (mostly American) Socata owners site a while ago and IIRC SR22 pilots paid way more than TB20 pilots, despite a similar aircraft.
I agree with the bit about feeling safer overflying fog etc. I would do the same. And as I have written here before, it is justifiable to do more risky missions because of the chute. Twin pilots do exactly that, after all. Whether I would carry an extra 50kg and paid an extra £10/hr for that reason, I don't know. I probably would if the aircraft had retractable gear and yokes
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Not long ago, the insurer for one UK Cirrus owner/group put up the deductible from ~ £3000 to £15000, after a well publicised chute pull (by somebody else) which was followed by the inevitable large insurance claim.
... but the reality seems to be that if you pull the chute in circumstances which were clearly favourable for a forced landing (lots of fields around, etc) you will find insurance a bit hard to find afterwards.
In the majority of Cirrus parachute pulls in the US, the pilots did not have trouble finding insurance. Most bought another Cirrus and got insurance promptly.
Cheers
Rick
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA, USA
BTW, how much is insurance in the USA for an SR22, hull value say $300k, pilot 500hrs, CPL/IR? I saw a survey on the (mostly American) Socata owners site a while ago and IIRC SR22 pilots paid way more than TB20 pilots, despite a similar aircraft.
Cheers
Rick
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA, USA
The history of Cirrus chute pulls does not help because it appears that most of them were either recoverable conventionally, or were the result of nonexistent preflight activity.
There have been 28 Cirrus parachute saves. I wonder what "most of them" means? And which ones were "recoverable conventionally" since the pilots didn't do that? And if there are any examples of "nonexistent preflight activity" before the accident flight?
Easy to say, eh? Harder to gain any useful value from such ill-informed claims.
Thanks for jumping in, Paul. We have a lot of work to do in the Cirrus community and this occasional foray into general aviation reveals the challenge we face.
Cheers
Rick
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA, USA
1% hull value plus liability, about $3500 to $4000
If not, in what market are you paying? And for what hull value of what model aircraft with what pilot qualifications?
Cheers
Rick
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
I pay $3760 on $350K hull with $1M smooth. For non smooth coverage it would be less. I asked for a quote on a G36 Bonanza with the same hull value. It came in at $4500 but the agent said she could get it lower if I got serious and expected it would be close to what I pay now.
