BRS in a twin
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.
Again Pace you have much more experience than me and we are all trained to land in a field and this was a hard thing for me to change my thinking, which I believe I have now done over a period of several years.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.
I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.
I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.
So the truth lies in between.
When the engine fails patently you have less control given that you have lost the ability to control your height profile to the same extent.
Never the less you are still in complete control of the aircraft albeit not necessarily in complete control of where it lands.
Most PPLs are complacent about PFLs. In my experience they are rarely practiced and most PPLs will do well to land in a chosen field unless the field presents perfectly! It rarely does! That doesnt mean they will kill themselves because aircraft are surprisingly good at passing over ditches or through hedges!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007heli
Is this a official recommended procedure for engine failure by Cirrus?
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result ?
I repeat an intact aircraft does not loose control and crash it's the pilot directing it that does that all on his own! So it still comes back to training, currency and ability.
Pace
Is this a official recommended procedure for engine failure by Cirrus?
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result ?
I repeat an intact aircraft does not loose control and crash it's the pilot directing it that does that all on his own! So it still comes back to training, currency and ability.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jun 2012 at 09:29.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a official recommended procedure for engine failure by Cirrus?
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result
I would be very surprised that Cirrus would do that without very hard backup evidence as they would be open to huge liability claims should serious injury occur as a result
So no not the official standpoint from the manufacturer but mine as PIC. (perhaps best you never come flying with me, I would hate to be wrestling in the air over trying to pull the CAPS handle)
Anyway my decision has not just been made because of a new gadget it is based on doing 3 x CPPP (Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programme's, essentially a 3 day course to enhance Pilot safet and decision making, organised by COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association ) Also I do annual recurrent training with Cirrus Platinum Instructors and have done formal Cirrus Sim training in the USA in use of the BRS, as I said it took me several years to change my opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control
If you read my post above how am I wrong? Obviously you cannot maintain altitude which I have actually written " You will be trading altitude to maintain that control".
You are effectively a glider. I am sure glider pilots do not consider that they have lost control?
You still have control of your descent profile other than in a downdraft but in a downdraft even an aircraft with power can "loose control"
The rest is up to piloting skills or lack of them!!!
Tell the Space Shuttle pilots that they have lost control on their long descent to a landing
Never heard anything so ridiclous 
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jun 2012 at 10:38.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Semantics perhaps but you have LESS control than with the engine running for the reasons you state. A glider never had an engine in the first place (well most anyway) or the space shuttle (after re-entry) so they haven't "suffered" any change in the control.
The current philosophy among Cirrus pilots is that a conventional forced landing should be the exception, not the rule. Why? Well as I said earlier if you fly regularly with PPLs and "surprise" them with a simulated engine failure most don't make a very good job of things. Moreover the evidence of a good outcome following a chute deployment is very good indeed. The trouble with a conventional forced landing is that however good you are there is always the possibility of the unexpected. There are many cases of pilots failing to spot power cables, large boulders or other obstacles all of which can really spoil your day.
I am aware this topic has been done many many times before and both views are regularly expressed but I can only report the current consensus. Of course if you fly a Cirrus, are in current practice of FLs and there is a socking great big field presenting itself to you are going to carry out a conventional FL - I would at least. As the field gets smaller, the terrain more hostile and you face up to your current gliding skill levels the chute becomes ever more attractive! From my own point of view I am conscious of the dangers of indecision - if in doubt I shall be opting for the chute!
As to the original question the risk of an engine failure is very small, the risk in a twin of a double engine failure while not half is not far of. The point comes at which the risk of not carrying a chute are out weighed by other factors. For me that point is reached with a twin, but I am a firm believer that it is a worth while addition in a SEP.
All the best.
Semantics perhaps but you have LESS control than with the engine running for the reasons you state. A glider never had an engine in the first place (well most anyway) or the space shuttle (after re-entry) so they haven't "suffered" any change in the control.
The current philosophy among Cirrus pilots is that a conventional forced landing should be the exception, not the rule. Why? Well as I said earlier if you fly regularly with PPLs and "surprise" them with a simulated engine failure most don't make a very good job of things. Moreover the evidence of a good outcome following a chute deployment is very good indeed. The trouble with a conventional forced landing is that however good you are there is always the possibility of the unexpected. There are many cases of pilots failing to spot power cables, large boulders or other obstacles all of which can really spoil your day.
I am aware this topic has been done many many times before and both views are regularly expressed but I can only report the current consensus. Of course if you fly a Cirrus, are in current practice of FLs and there is a socking great big field presenting itself to you are going to carry out a conventional FL - I would at least. As the field gets smaller, the terrain more hostile and you face up to your current gliding skill levels the chute becomes ever more attractive! From my own point of view I am conscious of the dangers of indecision - if in doubt I shall be opting for the chute!
As to the original question the risk of an engine failure is very small, the risk in a twin of a double engine failure while not half is not far of. The point comes at which the risk of not carrying a chute are out weighed by other factors. For me that point is reached with a twin, but I am a firm believer that it is a worth while addition in a SEP.
All the best.
Moderator
As with a twin which has an extra engine that extra engine gives you more options. With more options comes more choices! With more choices comes the option to make more wrong choices the same with the chute!
No, I have not taken training on the use of BRS, and I agree that more training is a fair approach to forming a qualified opinion. I don't envision myself flying a Cirrus anytime soon, but, you never know...
I ask myself though, with my possibly jaded attitude toward these systems, what would I do were I to be a guest passenger in such and aircraft, to a less experienced but Cirrus qualified pilot. It is obvious that that pilot and I would probably have quite different opinions on what constituted a good reason to pull the 'chute. The engine goes bang and stops at 2000 feet over mixed use land - the pilot starts to reach up.... I'd be saying whoa! Trim it for a glide, and let's have a good look around first... Similarly for other of the aforementioned failure modes.
We had a thread about "would you take over control?" a while back. I sure would be having that argument, before I allowed a lesser confident pilot pull the handle at a low risk threshold, and commit me to a very hard vertical landing which might not be necessary.
Change of survival is inversely proportional to angle of arrival
I'm not saying that there might not come a point where I would reach up too, but I suspect that my threshold for doing so would be very much higher than many pilots. You'd be amazed at what can be safely recovered and landed....
PPL in a spam can (me included)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji and 007heli
I do not think that either of you have properly thought out the implications of what you are suggesting using the chute for engine failure.
Let me expand on that. A conventional chute is used to evacuate an unflyable aircraft to save your bacon from
An aircraft which is going down regardless.
Let me give a comparable situation which shows what you are suggesting !
I own say a Grumman tiger and because I am an incapable pilot lacking skills I strap on a conventional parachute.
I have an engine failure at 2000 feet.
I instantly pull back the canopy and abandon a perfectly flyable aircraft.
Floating down under my chute I watch as the aircraft goes on its merry way descending into the back garden of a house and killing a baby in a pram!
You are suggesting abandoning a flyable aircraft, pulling the chute which makes it unflyable and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't come down onto someone killing them?
Any good pilot with an engine failure will be constantly assessing the situation! They will quickly have plan A B and C in mind as they descend and will abandon A if it's looking pear shaped !
The bad pilot will sit there like a frozen goose with only plan A in mind and become a passenger to the inevitable crash.
I could not live with the results of my actions abandoning a flyable aircraft to a chute if my actions resulted in someone on the ground being killed!
Ok over rough unpopulated terrain maybe? But think of what you are considering ?
Pace
I do not think that either of you have properly thought out the implications of what you are suggesting using the chute for engine failure.
Let me expand on that. A conventional chute is used to evacuate an unflyable aircraft to save your bacon from
An aircraft which is going down regardless.
Let me give a comparable situation which shows what you are suggesting !
I own say a Grumman tiger and because I am an incapable pilot lacking skills I strap on a conventional parachute.
I have an engine failure at 2000 feet.
I instantly pull back the canopy and abandon a perfectly flyable aircraft.
Floating down under my chute I watch as the aircraft goes on its merry way descending into the back garden of a house and killing a baby in a pram!
You are suggesting abandoning a flyable aircraft, pulling the chute which makes it unflyable and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't come down onto someone killing them?
Any good pilot with an engine failure will be constantly assessing the situation! They will quickly have plan A B and C in mind as they descend and will abandon A if it's looking pear shaped !
The bad pilot will sit there like a frozen goose with only plan A in mind and become a passenger to the inevitable crash.
I could not live with the results of my actions abandoning a flyable aircraft to a chute if my actions resulted in someone on the ground being killed!
Ok over rough unpopulated terrain maybe? But think of what you are considering ?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jun 2012 at 14:59.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think that either of you have properly thought out the implications of what you are suggesting using the chute for engine failure.
You are suggesting abandoning a flyable aircraft, pulling the chute which makes it unflyable and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't come down onto someone killing them?
Either way the reality of people on ground being injured by SEP is tiny so not that relevant to the debate..
In any event with sufficient altitude I would aim to glide as far as possible away from a populated area.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR I only flew in Canada once from Goose bay to Bangor, In a Cirrus SR22, it was a flight of 4-5 hours and I recall the majority of the trip was very inhospitable terrain, trees, small swampy looking lakes, also I assume hundreds of miles from a road or town. In that type of trip I did feel my chances of survival were vastly improved with a chute in the event of an emergency landing.
Also generally speaking I think there is an attitude that poor pilots rely on the chute and are wimps , real pilots can handle off airport landings in their stride with their skill and superior skills. (Not directed at you or anyone else) but I do feel it is a Macho attitude I have seen often.
As a lowly PPL I just do not like to risk factor of attempting an off airfield landing, 75% - 85% of which may be OK, I prefer better odds when things randomly go wrong, usually at a bad time.
I flew for an hour or so PM today over the Kent countryside, There were many fields that look tempting but reminded myself of what my SOP is.
Also generally speaking I think there is an attitude that poor pilots rely on the chute and are wimps , real pilots can handle off airport landings in their stride with their skill and superior skills. (Not directed at you or anyone else) but I do feel it is a Macho attitude I have seen often.
As a lowly PPL I just do not like to risk factor of attempting an off airfield landing, 75% - 85% of which may be OK, I prefer better odds when things randomly go wrong, usually at a bad time.
I flew for an hour or so PM today over the Kent countryside, There were many fields that look tempting but reminded myself of what my SOP is.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007heli
We will have to beg to differ!
The big difference is the aircraft going at 60-70 kts is under pilot control and he has full directional control on where it goes!
The pilot under the chuted aircraft has absolutely NO directional control over where the aircraft comes down.
The winds effect that yes! But the pilot No.
Out of a Uk airport the chances of coming down onto someone are not as small as you think!
Cirrus could never publicly and officially make that recommendation as they would open themselves to being sued should anything occur.
Incapacitation yes the aircraft is unflyable other than by a passenger!
Structural damage yes
At night probably yes as in a forced landing you will not see much anyway!
Other than that they might as well teach students In conventional trainers to take a parachute along and abandon ship if the engine fails ; )
Pace beg to differ : )
We will have to beg to differ!
The big difference is the aircraft going at 60-70 kts is under pilot control and he has full directional control on where it goes!
The pilot under the chuted aircraft has absolutely NO directional control over where the aircraft comes down.
The winds effect that yes! But the pilot No.
Out of a Uk airport the chances of coming down onto someone are not as small as you think!
Cirrus could never publicly and officially make that recommendation as they would open themselves to being sued should anything occur.
Incapacitation yes the aircraft is unflyable other than by a passenger!
Structural damage yes
At night probably yes as in a forced landing you will not see much anyway!
Other than that they might as well teach students In conventional trainers to take a parachute along and abandon ship if the engine fails ; )
Pace beg to differ : )
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jun 2012 at 16:31.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace no problem and I think 95% + on this forum may well agree with you.
Equally in the Cirrus community there is a healthy spread of for and against but my opinion is over the last years of CPPP's that the pro chute compared to off airfield landing is likely in the majority.
Equally in the Cirrus community there is a healthy spread of for and against but my opinion is over the last years of CPPP's that the pro chute compared to off airfield landing is likely in the majority.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I am not so certain you are correct.
The chute shouldnt be pulled at a high altitude (unless there is some exceptional reason for doing so, eg structural failure). Give the wind vector on the Avidyne and a reasonably low altitude the pilot will in fact have a reasonable idea of where he is going to land.
However, more to the point the landing will be almost vertical and without a great deal of energy. In contrast a conventional forced landing even well executed will carry a considerable amount more energy and the landing "roll" will be over a much greater distance.
I have seen first hand the effects of light twin (not very different from a Cirrus) landing in a row of houses.
At 1,500 feet with or without the engine the options start to narrow. If you are unfortunate enough to be over a built up area you are unlikely to be able to position the aircraft to ensure no collateral damage and my bet would be on your causing far less damage landing under a chute than not.
It is all very well thinking the average PPL would handle the emergency as well as you - the reality is the majority would not.
Can you imagine for a moment the difference between a Cirrus landing vertically on someones roof and impacting the side of the roof at 70 knots?
So in short it is a big assumption that the pilot without chute is in full directional control. He may well maintain control (although there are plenty of examples where he doesn't) but the options may not be attractive even under control. For those that havent it is well worth getting a mate to pull the throttle at 1,500 when you are not expecting it to happen. It sure as hell concentrates everyone's mind and you quickly realise you need to make decisions reasonably quickly.
It is all very well assuming an engine failure is going to be in the cruise at FL50 and good luck if it is. Chute or not all of a sudden you have a load more options. Unfortunately life doesn't always play by the rules; that is where another option is so invaluable.
Apologies for being reasonably passionate about this topic but I guess anyone with many hundreds of hours on a Cirrus would be. We have had to think about it and we have had to question what we would do. I have read the account of pretty much every chute pull and the banter about most of them. My own opinion is the evidence points to the outcome being a lot more predictable than a conventional forced landing. Case for case there are no guarantees and I shall be happy to never have to reach for the handle.
I am not so certain you are correct.
The chute shouldnt be pulled at a high altitude (unless there is some exceptional reason for doing so, eg structural failure). Give the wind vector on the Avidyne and a reasonably low altitude the pilot will in fact have a reasonable idea of where he is going to land.
However, more to the point the landing will be almost vertical and without a great deal of energy. In contrast a conventional forced landing even well executed will carry a considerable amount more energy and the landing "roll" will be over a much greater distance.
I have seen first hand the effects of light twin (not very different from a Cirrus) landing in a row of houses.
At 1,500 feet with or without the engine the options start to narrow. If you are unfortunate enough to be over a built up area you are unlikely to be able to position the aircraft to ensure no collateral damage and my bet would be on your causing far less damage landing under a chute than not.
It is all very well thinking the average PPL would handle the emergency as well as you - the reality is the majority would not.
Can you imagine for a moment the difference between a Cirrus landing vertically on someones roof and impacting the side of the roof at 70 knots?
So in short it is a big assumption that the pilot without chute is in full directional control. He may well maintain control (although there are plenty of examples where he doesn't) but the options may not be attractive even under control. For those that havent it is well worth getting a mate to pull the throttle at 1,500 when you are not expecting it to happen. It sure as hell concentrates everyone's mind and you quickly realise you need to make decisions reasonably quickly.
It is all very well assuming an engine failure is going to be in the cruise at FL50 and good luck if it is. Chute or not all of a sudden you have a load more options. Unfortunately life doesn't always play by the rules; that is where another option is so invaluable.
Apologies for being reasonably passionate about this topic but I guess anyone with many hundreds of hours on a Cirrus would be. We have had to think about it and we have had to question what we would do. I have read the account of pretty much every chute pull and the banter about most of them. My own opinion is the evidence points to the outcome being a lot more predictable than a conventional forced landing. Case for case there are no guarantees and I shall be happy to never have to reach for the handle.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
What you are suggesting is absolutely NO different to suggesting all PPLs carry and wear a parachute in a Cessna 150.
In the event of an engine failure forget forced landings or PFLs and instead make it policy to bail out and leave the aircraft to its own devices to crash wherever! There is absolutely no difference to pulling the chute on a perfectly flyable Cirrus aircraft! Its madness.
When I had my forced landing into a field it was much publiced in the press.
I was a new PPL, 25 plus years ago fresh out of car racing and a bit of a hot shot.
I ended up descending rapidly from 10000 feet to my home airfield as I could not afford the flight and was trying to make a straight in to save money.
Realising with no experience I could not make it I decided instead to impress everyone with a low pass and pull up.
I pulled up but with nothing from the engine and took to a field.
Over the hedge at 70 kts in a PA28 my passenger freaked out pulled the door open and tried to jump out!
The aircraft touched down just as I grabbed his jumper and he went out onto the wing with me in tow as I was scared he would break his kneck.
We ended up bouncing down the field with no one at the controls.
I could not hold him and let him go.
By the time I got back onto the brakes too late I took out a hedge which conceiled a chopped off tree stump which sliced through the wing.
Perfect landing and touch down into the field shame about the interuption.
So all that time back then no experience.
But what you are suggesting could mean taking out someone on the ground and making a perfectly flyable aircraft into one which is not.
Write to the CAA and suggest training changes, abolition of PFLs and requirement of all students to wear parachutes. New procedure? Bail out on engine failure! There is no difference to what you are suggesting.
Any Parachute is an escape route from an aircraft which is unflyable not from one which has just turned into a glider.
Pace
What you are suggesting is absolutely NO different to suggesting all PPLs carry and wear a parachute in a Cessna 150.
In the event of an engine failure forget forced landings or PFLs and instead make it policy to bail out and leave the aircraft to its own devices to crash wherever! There is absolutely no difference to pulling the chute on a perfectly flyable Cirrus aircraft! Its madness.
When I had my forced landing into a field it was much publiced in the press.
I was a new PPL, 25 plus years ago fresh out of car racing and a bit of a hot shot.
I ended up descending rapidly from 10000 feet to my home airfield as I could not afford the flight and was trying to make a straight in to save money.
Realising with no experience I could not make it I decided instead to impress everyone with a low pass and pull up.
I pulled up but with nothing from the engine and took to a field.
Over the hedge at 70 kts in a PA28 my passenger freaked out pulled the door open and tried to jump out!
The aircraft touched down just as I grabbed his jumper and he went out onto the wing with me in tow as I was scared he would break his kneck.
We ended up bouncing down the field with no one at the controls.
I could not hold him and let him go.
By the time I got back onto the brakes too late I took out a hedge which conceiled a chopped off tree stump which sliced through the wing.
Perfect landing and touch down into the field shame about the interuption.
So all that time back then no experience.
But what you are suggesting could mean taking out someone on the ground and making a perfectly flyable aircraft into one which is not.
Write to the CAA and suggest training changes, abolition of PFLs and requirement of all students to wear parachutes. New procedure? Bail out on engine failure! There is no difference to what you are suggesting.
Any Parachute is an escape route from an aircraft which is unflyable not from one which has just turned into a glider.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Jun 2012 at 00:11.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you are suggesting is absolutely NO different to suggesting all PPLs carry and wear a parachute in a Cessna 150.
In the event of an engine failure
In the event of an engine failure
1) So I have my family in a Cessna say 172 and we are all going to jump out taking 2-4 minutes at least, I do not think so.
2) The aircraft would be then a relatively high speed lump of debris randomly impacting anywhere full of fuel and likely to explode.
No I do not think anyone is suggesting that and it would be madness and no one is suggesting writing to the CAA with this as a viable alternative.
It appears a difficult concept using BRS for most pilots to accept because for ever they / we have been trained to land in a field as the only available option to them was to land in a field.
Most do not have BRS available to them so discard it as a gimmick or a cop out of being the captain in command.
In the Cirrus their is a choice and a viable alternative. Due to its higher stall speed (than most spam cans) and small wheels that are not very good off road creating a bigger chance of flipping and kart wheeling I prefer to a pre planned decision that unless I have a known or virtually guaranteed suitable landing surface I will use the chute.
This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would choose to do in a non equipped BRS because they do not have the option.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 24th Jun 2012 at 08:24.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask a question, using the Cirrus as an example, or a similar TAA aircraft with similar stall speeds and characteristics.
If you put an average PPL in that aircraft, with his loved ones four up, full fuel and did a random test at 2000ft over the UK where without warning they had zero power?
What do you think the success rate would be per 100 aircraft of complete success and no injuries to the occupants doing a traditional forced landing?
Who knows but I would expect 80% optimistic and at the very least 20% may not survive and probably more fatalities.
In my opinion and best guess if in the same scenario the chute was used I suspect the success rate would be in the very high 90's but I doubt 100% but it would be more likely to achieve 100% success with the Chute than either your average or for that matter your very experienced Pilot.
That is entirely why I have reached my decision.
If you put an average PPL in that aircraft, with his loved ones four up, full fuel and did a random test at 2000ft over the UK where without warning they had zero power?
What do you think the success rate would be per 100 aircraft of complete success and no injuries to the occupants doing a traditional forced landing?
Who knows but I would expect 80% optimistic and at the very least 20% may not survive and probably more fatalities.
In my opinion and best guess if in the same scenario the chute was used I suspect the success rate would be in the very high 90's but I doubt 100% but it would be more likely to achieve 100% success with the Chute than either your average or for that matter your very experienced Pilot.
That is entirely why I have reached my decision.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007Heli
But then that is a reflection of the training not being good. A forced landing is not difficult for a properly trained and competant pilot. As long as you keep flying and land into wind the chances of killing yourself even if you hit something are small.
I am not opposed to the chute at all. It is a safety option but it is an option.
I have heard two forced landings on the radio in the past in both cases the pilots were discovered standing near the undamaged aircraft in a field.
Pull the chute and you destroy the airframe.
I would love a Cirrus! and the Chute. As we get older we become more cautious and aware of our own vulnerability especially if we carry people we love who we know would not stand a chance if we are incapacitated.
The chute would be a big bonus.
For me the governing rule should be is the aircraft safely flyable?
There are situations where I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain!
We all know the rules re engine failure over built up areas ie at a hight where we can glide clear!
Once you pull that chute you no longer have control over where it comes down.
The descent rate and impact is not a gentle thing and if it comes down on top of somebody it is you who have to live with the fact especially knowing you had perfectly tried and tested alternatives open to you.
You admit to being low time and having little confidence in pulling off a successful forced landing.
I would thoughly suggest you get a good instructor and sort that out so the chute becomes an option and not an answer to all which it is not!!
Pace
But then that is a reflection of the training not being good. A forced landing is not difficult for a properly trained and competant pilot. As long as you keep flying and land into wind the chances of killing yourself even if you hit something are small.
I am not opposed to the chute at all. It is a safety option but it is an option.
I have heard two forced landings on the radio in the past in both cases the pilots were discovered standing near the undamaged aircraft in a field.
Pull the chute and you destroy the airframe.
I would love a Cirrus! and the Chute. As we get older we become more cautious and aware of our own vulnerability especially if we carry people we love who we know would not stand a chance if we are incapacitated.
The chute would be a big bonus.
For me the governing rule should be is the aircraft safely flyable?
There are situations where I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain!
We all know the rules re engine failure over built up areas ie at a hight where we can glide clear!
Once you pull that chute you no longer have control over where it comes down.
The descent rate and impact is not a gentle thing and if it comes down on top of somebody it is you who have to live with the fact especially knowing you had perfectly tried and tested alternatives open to you.
You admit to being low time and having little confidence in pulling off a successful forced landing.
I would thoughly suggest you get a good instructor and sort that out so the chute becomes an option and not an answer to all which it is not!!
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A forced landing is not difficult for a properly trained and competant pilot. As long as you keep flying and land into wind the chances of killing yourself even if you hit something are small
There are situations where I would pull the chute in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain!
The descent rate and impact is not a gentle thing and if it comes down on top of somebody it is you who have to live with the fact especially knowing you had perfectly tried and tested alternatives open to you.
You admit to being low time and having little confidence in pulling off a successful forced landing.
I think I have around a 70 -80% chance of successin a forced landing while under pressure, in typical terrain and typical european weather, I just think I have a better chance genererally speaking with the chute.
I would thoughly suggest you get a good instructor and sort that out so the chute becomes an option and not an answer to all which it is not!!
Sadly some with it just totally forget in the heat of the moment it is available.
If I wanted a twin and the chute option existed, yep, I would still have it in the tool box.