BRS in a twin
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
I would think that coming down under canopy over a populated area would be safer than dead sticking it in. If you hit a roof under canopy it is doubtful you will crush into someone's bedroom. Coming down vertically makes for a smaller impacted area and a lot less kinetic energy The large chute and noise of the rocket firing serve as warning signals. The lower closing speed under canopy vs. a descent at optimum glide means more time to react. There has never been a person injured on the ground due to a Cirrus descending under canopy. I haven't heard about one from other BRS equipped planes but there could be one.
The record shows that BRS has a usage profile similar to when ejection seats were first introduced. The problem isn't unnecessary pulls but rather people not pulling when they should. Going to my friend's funeral drove that home.
As for old farts flying planes (guilty) it is a painful reality of the economics.
The record shows that BRS has a usage profile similar to when ejection seats were first introduced. The problem isn't unnecessary pulls but rather people not pulling when they should. Going to my friend's funeral drove that home.
As for old farts flying planes (guilty) it is a painful reality of the economics.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Edited to add - it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
That UK Cirrus chute pull (I am assuming there has been only one so far) was immediately followed by a letter from the insurer advising of a massive hike in the insurance excess.
The AAIB report doesn't exactly create a good impression of the pilot, but one could say that about many others. It is the Cirrus ones that get dragged out repeatedly...
A VFR-only Cirrus is a chocolate teapot but that is a different topic. No, I don't get it either.
The AAIB report doesn't exactly create a good impression of the pilot, but one could say that about many others. It is the Cirrus ones that get dragged out repeatedly...
A VFR-only Cirrus is a chocolate teapot but that is a different topic. No, I don't get it either.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 248
Likes: 2
From: london
I've not had the pleasure of flying a Cirrus, but surely anyone with any kind of rating allowing flight in IMC should at least be capable of maintaining controlled flight with just a T&S and compass?
Edit: Have just seen this:
This is mind boggling - the additional cost of fitting an electrically-driven turn coordinator visible to the pilot is surely miniscule in relation to the price of a Cirrus?
Last edited by Sillert,V.I.; 26th June 2012 at 13:29.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: England
The Cirrus SRV was a VFR-only version of SR20 optimized for the low-end private ownership and flight training market. Relatively few sold.
"Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt."
So many developments that could encourage pilots to fly in conditions that they or the aircraft might not be up to...
...machines with wings, instrumentation, AI's, autopilots, two engines, three engines, four engines, jet engines, pressurisation, seatbelts, airbags, crash helmets, more 'crashworthy' structures, fire-extinquishers, weather radar, storm scope, anti-ice, fiki, BRS, and no doubt technology will continue to provide further opporutunities to develop knowledge, skills and judgement or perhaps experience the unforgiving circumstances that can arise out there.
I do not have evidence either way as to whether the SRV pilot 'attempted the flight BECAUSE' the aircraft had a BRS.
What we do have is plenty of evidence over decades of accident investigations of VFR in to IMC accidents like that, which usually end very badly of course.
Seems reasonable to hypothesize that a proportion of such a 'population' is nowadays flying aircraft with BRS, some will end up using BRS and some will live to witness how it all went to pot rather then ending the flight tragically.
The difference between this Oxford pull and many VFR-IMC fatals over the years would appear to me to be not that the chute got the pilot into that situation in the first place (evidence?), but fortunately did get the aircraft on the ground safely (it did).
Rather than see it as 'there's an accident that happened because of the BRS' I see it as 'there is yet another VFR-IMC accident, that would most likely have been fatal bar the BRS'.
The list of VFR-IMC fatal accidents, and other 'out of depth' accident types will continue to grow over time. Short of parallel universes I doubt anything that could really tell us if that list is growing faster or slower as the result of BRS technology, or say auto-pilot or AI technology.
-------------------------------------
"but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen)."
Really? Whose current philosophy would that be Fuji?
.
"Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt."
So many developments that could encourage pilots to fly in conditions that they or the aircraft might not be up to...
...machines with wings, instrumentation, AI's, autopilots, two engines, three engines, four engines, jet engines, pressurisation, seatbelts, airbags, crash helmets, more 'crashworthy' structures, fire-extinquishers, weather radar, storm scope, anti-ice, fiki, BRS, and no doubt technology will continue to provide further opporutunities to develop knowledge, skills and judgement or perhaps experience the unforgiving circumstances that can arise out there.
I do not have evidence either way as to whether the SRV pilot 'attempted the flight BECAUSE' the aircraft had a BRS.
What we do have is plenty of evidence over decades of accident investigations of VFR in to IMC accidents like that, which usually end very badly of course.
Seems reasonable to hypothesize that a proportion of such a 'population' is nowadays flying aircraft with BRS, some will end up using BRS and some will live to witness how it all went to pot rather then ending the flight tragically.
The difference between this Oxford pull and many VFR-IMC fatals over the years would appear to me to be not that the chute got the pilot into that situation in the first place (evidence?), but fortunately did get the aircraft on the ground safely (it did).
Rather than see it as 'there's an accident that happened because of the BRS' I see it as 'there is yet another VFR-IMC accident, that would most likely have been fatal bar the BRS'.
The list of VFR-IMC fatal accidents, and other 'out of depth' accident types will continue to grow over time. Short of parallel universes I doubt anything that could really tell us if that list is growing faster or slower as the result of BRS technology, or say auto-pilot or AI technology.
-------------------------------------
"but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen)."
Really? Whose current philosophy would that be Fuji?
.
Last edited by execExpress; 26th June 2012 at 13:27.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Paul
Obviously if you cannot glide clear of a built up area you are far far better coming down into buildings under a chute and vertically than at flying speeds!
A couple of points come up in that scenario! Firstly the gliding clear rule ! If you are too low over an extensive built up area to glide clear you are breaking the law being there!
If your not too low chances are you can glide clear!
The biggest difference is that at flying speeds even engine out you as the pilot are fully in control of where you go, what you hit or don't hit as the case may be.
The outcome will depend on your flying skills, judgment and precision.
Pull the chute and you are out of control and at the mercy of the winds as to where you crash . Make no mistake it will be a crash which will be at high rate of descent. It will wreck the airframe and on a windy day you may still run horizontally into a brick wall at 30 miles an hour!
The concept of using the chute as an answer to everything is a dangerous principal to hold.
Pace
Obviously if you cannot glide clear of a built up area you are far far better coming down into buildings under a chute and vertically than at flying speeds!
A couple of points come up in that scenario! Firstly the gliding clear rule ! If you are too low over an extensive built up area to glide clear you are breaking the law being there!
If your not too low chances are you can glide clear!
The biggest difference is that at flying speeds even engine out you as the pilot are fully in control of where you go, what you hit or don't hit as the case may be.
The outcome will depend on your flying skills, judgment and precision.
Pull the chute and you are out of control and at the mercy of the winds as to where you crash . Make no mistake it will be a crash which will be at high rate of descent. It will wreck the airframe and on a windy day you may still run horizontally into a brick wall at 30 miles an hour!
The concept of using the chute as an answer to everything is a dangerous principal to hold.
Pace
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
To be fair it would appear neither the aircraft or pilot were instrument rated. There is nothing wrong in that as there are plenty of high performance home built that would fall into the same category.
It is well rehearsed that incursion into IMC by a non instrument rated pilots can be a recipe for disaster although with current training and a functioning autopilot (or even without) one would hope the pilot would do a reasonable job of getting themselves out of trouble (or at least make a reasonable attempt before resorting to the chute).
That said, it is one thing to remain upright with a conventional gyro and compass and quite another for the non instrument rated pilot with a T and S and compass.
In this case there is no suggestion the PFD had failed so it would seem the pilot has a fully functioning AI and compass. There is some doubt as to whether the autopilot may have tripped but that shouldn't itself have been too much of a problem.
With regards to T and S and a compass its all very well saying that any instrument rated pilot should make a good job of flying in IMC with nothing more, but I am not convinced. Remember in this particular configuration of the Cirrus that really would be all you are left with, there is no GPS, VOR or ILS tracking other than whats available on the 430s (I am guessing these are fitted in this configuration, but I don't know) and at least in my book this would be a genuine emergency even for an instrument rated pilot. (All that said remember that is not the scenario in this accident).
Hypothetically if (he says he didn't) the pilot inadvertently entered IMC and if in some light turbulence the autopilot tripped the aircraft's attitude might have become upset very quickly (or he might have inadvertently disengaged the autopilot, I don't think that would show up on the data track) and in a moment of "panic" the pilot decided the best option was to pull the chute. Given the speed it does sound like the aircraft had already well and truly departed from normal flight and the pilot was probably very wise to do so given he was not instrument rated. So in reality in these hypothetical circumstances it is "just" another example of inadvertent flight into instrument conditions EXCEPT with a happy outcome.
It is well rehearsed that incursion into IMC by a non instrument rated pilots can be a recipe for disaster although with current training and a functioning autopilot (or even without) one would hope the pilot would do a reasonable job of getting themselves out of trouble (or at least make a reasonable attempt before resorting to the chute).
That said, it is one thing to remain upright with a conventional gyro and compass and quite another for the non instrument rated pilot with a T and S and compass.
In this case there is no suggestion the PFD had failed so it would seem the pilot has a fully functioning AI and compass. There is some doubt as to whether the autopilot may have tripped but that shouldn't itself have been too much of a problem.
With regards to T and S and a compass its all very well saying that any instrument rated pilot should make a good job of flying in IMC with nothing more, but I am not convinced. Remember in this particular configuration of the Cirrus that really would be all you are left with, there is no GPS, VOR or ILS tracking other than whats available on the 430s (I am guessing these are fitted in this configuration, but I don't know) and at least in my book this would be a genuine emergency even for an instrument rated pilot. (All that said remember that is not the scenario in this accident).
Hypothetically if (he says he didn't) the pilot inadvertently entered IMC and if in some light turbulence the autopilot tripped the aircraft's attitude might have become upset very quickly (or he might have inadvertently disengaged the autopilot, I don't think that would show up on the data track) and in a moment of "panic" the pilot decided the best option was to pull the chute. Given the speed it does sound like the aircraft had already well and truly departed from normal flight and the pilot was probably very wise to do so given he was not instrument rated. So in reality in these hypothetical circumstances it is "just" another example of inadvertent flight into instrument conditions EXCEPT with a happy outcome.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 26th June 2012 at 14:43.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
What do all you guys who can fly in IMC using just a turn and slip, and a compass, use for pitch information?
I did this once suddenly during an instrument failure in IMC conditions, and though not precise, it worked and go me out.
To drift back, if you've maganged to loose control during IMC flight as a result of an instrument failure, I would suspect that you had taken the BRS equipped aircraft beyond the intended deployment envelope. BRS is not a subsitute for minium IMC piloting skills!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
From: Bury St. Edmunds
Pitch info with no artificial horizon or attitude indicator
When I was taught instrument flying on a "limited panel" pitch info (with no AH) is derived from scanning the ASI and VSI. Generally if the airspeed is increasing and decending the nose is too low.....and vice versa. The trick was to be smooth, make small corrections early, keep the scan going and avoid increasing "g"...
Any increasing "g" was likely to be as a result of getting into a spiral dive.....
The recovery was to unload the "g" (the turn needle would be unreliable under high "g") correct the turn (ie remove bank) re-apply pitch up with wings level until the speed was under control again pitch down slightly to stop any climb (using the alt and vsi) when level adjust speed by use of throttle. With practice it became quite easy.....as do most things in flying......practice, currency and a continual striving to fly accurately is the the key.
In the RAF this was taught from a very early stage as inevitably gyros would "topple" doing aerobatics and any inadvertant entry into cloud, say whilst in a spin, would require recovery on instruments where only pressure-driven instruments, ASI, ALT, VSI, T&S would be working.
I hope that this is of help.
MB
Any increasing "g" was likely to be as a result of getting into a spiral dive.....
The recovery was to unload the "g" (the turn needle would be unreliable under high "g") correct the turn (ie remove bank) re-apply pitch up with wings level until the speed was under control again pitch down slightly to stop any climb (using the alt and vsi) when level adjust speed by use of throttle. With practice it became quite easy.....as do most things in flying......practice, currency and a continual striving to fly accurately is the the key.
In the RAF this was taught from a very early stage as inevitably gyros would "topple" doing aerobatics and any inadvertant entry into cloud, say whilst in a spin, would require recovery on instruments where only pressure-driven instruments, ASI, ALT, VSI, T&S would be working.
I hope that this is of help.
MB
Last edited by Madbob; 26th June 2012 at 14:50.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Yes I know about using Airspeed, altimeter, VSI etc, but there was no mention of these instruments being available. Just T&S and compass!
With regards to T and S and a compass its all very well saying that any instrument rated pilot should make a good job of flying in IMC with nothing more,
surely anyone with any kind of rating allowing flight in IMC should at least be capable of maintaining controlled flight with just a T&S and compass?
Last edited by flybymike; 26th June 2012 at 14:53.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Every plane must have an altimeter.
The standard partial panel procedure (no DI, no AI, no VSI) is to use the TC for wings level (with timed turns to turn onto a new heading) and to use the altimeter for pitch.
It's quite easy provided you don't have to do very much else
A VSI is a worse pitch reference than an altimeter because of the lag.
The standard partial panel procedure (no DI, no AI, no VSI) is to use the TC for wings level (with timed turns to turn onto a new heading) and to use the altimeter for pitch.
It's quite easy provided you don't have to do very much else
A VSI is a worse pitch reference than an altimeter because of the lag.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
I am just guessing at the configuration of the Cirrus in question but if it was an Avidyne Entegra equipped plane then there is a TC that is hidden behind the panel that drives the AP. Before everyone goes ballistic over this you need to check what is visible. There is a TC in the PFD (along with AI, airspeed, etc.). As backup there is an altimeter, airspeed indicator and a second AI (standard electric round gauges) just below the PFD. I'll take a second AI over a second TC any day. Compared to most planes it takes a lot to leave the pilot with no attitude guidance. There are dual batteries and dual alternators diode connected to two busses. The essential bus is diode isolated from the main so if something shorts that isn't on the essential bus (Garmin #2 for example) then the essential bus function will still work. The AP can fly the plane straight and level and even follow a GPS course (if GPS1 working) with the PFD and backup AI out based on the hidden TC.
Last edited by paulp; 26th June 2012 at 16:59.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
Pace - I don't think the chute is the answer to even half of everything 
However, at least where I fly, you would bust class B if you climbed high enough to glide clear of everything. I just think there is less of a chance of injuring someone coming down under canopy. A Lancair killed a guy on a beach because the guy running didn't hear the plane and the pilot said he only noticed him at the last second. The real fact is that danger to people on the ground from small planes is over rated. The number of deaths on the ground is very small in any year and most come from well intentioned pilots going down in densely populated neighborhoods because there was nowhere else to go.
However, at least where I fly, you would bust class B if you climbed high enough to glide clear of everything. I just think there is less of a chance of injuring someone coming down under canopy. A Lancair killed a guy on a beach because the guy running didn't hear the plane and the pilot said he only noticed him at the last second. The real fact is that danger to people on the ground from small planes is over rated. The number of deaths on the ground is very small in any year and most come from well intentioned pilots going down in densely populated neighborhoods because there was nowhere else to go.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
I'm actually flying right now with a broken AI. I have it covered up, because my eyes kept going to it. So if I was to inadvertently enter cloud/night/freezing rain I would only have my turn indicator to know if I'm upright. If something else failed on top of this, like a frozen pitot or something, I'd be in trouble.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From: uk
"but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen)."
Finally it is interesting the pilot attempted to use the engine to reposition the aircraft. This has been attempted before. I have to say I am still not clear how successfully. It is a shame there is not a more detailed analysis in the report
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Paul
This is the last time I am going to post on this as I am repeating myself. At the end of the day I can only be responsible for my own actions flying others for theirs.
The Cirrus is a lovely aircraft and the chute is a wonderful addition which already has a good record of saving lives.
My concern is using it as a standard engine failure recovery system. If I was flying over a built up area and knew I did not have enough altitude to glide clear of course I would be the first to take to the chute.
I would probably steer the aircraft to a point where I felt it would do minimal damage to people on the ground but then I would pull it as in control of the aircraft or under a chute I am coming down into that built up area.
Both scenarios flying under control into a built up area or parachuting out of control into a built up area are not a good situation to be in but the chute would have a slightly better chance of a successful outcome.
Over greenfields even if there is the odd hedge around I would put it down in a forced landing rather than pulling the chute.
As for the aircraft I would love to own a part share in one probably an SR20 when I stop flying private jets and the chute would play a major part in the confidence factor taking family and friends up single pilot and probably would do for pilots in their 40s 50s and beyond.
I would try not to let it influence my flying decisions where I took to weather or conditions which I would not fly in in a chuteless aircraft.
Beyond that if I felt the aircraft was readily flyable I would fly it rather than pulling the chute but then I am a confident and arrogant pilot
I would rather be that way than a lacking in confidence in my abilities, nervous pilot!
This is the last time I am going to post on this as I am repeating myself. At the end of the day I can only be responsible for my own actions flying others for theirs.
The Cirrus is a lovely aircraft and the chute is a wonderful addition which already has a good record of saving lives.
My concern is using it as a standard engine failure recovery system. If I was flying over a built up area and knew I did not have enough altitude to glide clear of course I would be the first to take to the chute.
I would probably steer the aircraft to a point where I felt it would do minimal damage to people on the ground but then I would pull it as in control of the aircraft or under a chute I am coming down into that built up area.
Both scenarios flying under control into a built up area or parachuting out of control into a built up area are not a good situation to be in but the chute would have a slightly better chance of a successful outcome.
Over greenfields even if there is the odd hedge around I would put it down in a forced landing rather than pulling the chute.
As for the aircraft I would love to own a part share in one probably an SR20 when I stop flying private jets and the chute would play a major part in the confidence factor taking family and friends up single pilot and probably would do for pilots in their 40s 50s and beyond.
I would try not to let it influence my flying decisions where I took to weather or conditions which I would not fly in in a chuteless aircraft.
Beyond that if I felt the aircraft was readily flyable I would fly it rather than pulling the chute but then I am a confident and arrogant pilot
I would rather be that way than a lacking in confidence in my abilities, nervous pilot!
Last edited by Pace; 26th June 2012 at 22:24.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From: uk
I do wonder if the pilot in the report below would have thought more about NOT undertaking the flight due to the weather if he had not got a BRS fitted.
Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf
Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf
Interesting to note that he did not receive much training about the CAPS procedure in his transition training, and also note CAPS deployment worked successfully at 187 KIAS, which is well above the 133 KIAS demonstrated deployment airspeed.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 26th June 2012 at 22:27.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Johns Creek, GA
Pace - While we may disagree on some fine points, it is probably less than you think. I've had two instructors who dead sticked a Cirrus down after an engine failure so I don't feel pulling is the only answer. Then again, I'm not the best pilot which I rediscovered recently doing engine out practice. 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Paul
We are probably not that far apart Do you know if using the chute for engine failure is a standard operating procedure recommended and approved by Cirrus?
There have been roughly 35 pulls which is a small amount compared to flights made and as such not indicative of because it has not happened yet it will not!
If a person or persons on the ground are killed in the future by a Cirrus which could have glided clear but descended into a built up area on recommendation from Cirrus the ramifications are huge and on that point alone I could not see Cirrus formally approving the chute as a SOP for engine failure but only for loss of control.
Pace
We are probably not that far apart
Do you know if using the chute for engine failure is a standard operating procedure recommended and approved by Cirrus?There have been roughly 35 pulls which is a small amount compared to flights made and as such not indicative of because it has not happened yet it will not!
If a person or persons on the ground are killed in the future by a Cirrus which could have glided clear but descended into a built up area on recommendation from Cirrus the ramifications are huge and on that point alone I could not see Cirrus formally approving the chute as a SOP for engine failure but only for loss of control.
Pace