BRS in a twin

[007helicopter]

Do you know if using the chute for engine failure is a standard operating procedure recommended and approved by Cirrus?

from the POH

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.

So I guess where we differ is

a) On the interpretation of a safe landing area.
b) On risk of hitting and injuring someone on the ground.

other than that we pretty much both positive about having BRS on board

[007helicopter]

Would there be a market for this, after all surely this would then kill the debate, what would you rather have a BRS or an extra engine when flying over mountains or water?

The OP asked the question above, this has been an interesting debate but in the exact scenario he suggests I think an extra engine would be more desirable and useful in the event of purely engine failure.

But not a lot of use in many other scenarios which happen all to often, loss of control for what ever reason.

[Maoraigh1]

A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

[Pace]

Maoraigh1

That is part of the reason I am concerned when some in this thread regard the chute as an answer to all ills.
Without doubt there are benefits I question its use for a straight engine failure or in anything where you still have a flyable aircraft albeit a glider.
Once the chute is pulled you no longer have a flyable aircraft and become a passenger to wherever the aircraft takes you.
a strong wind and you will still get the 30 mph crash but whatever is chosen for you rather than what you choose.
Unlike some here who quote the 35 odd landings I do not see this as any reflection on the fact that there is a strong likelihood that someone on the ground will be killed by a cirrus in the future especially with a vertical or near vertical descent into a heavy built up area.

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.

The Cirrus advice posted above is hardly an endorsement of using the chute for engine failure but for using it as a last resort after conventional forced landings techniques do not look good especially regarding terrain and even then they refer to "maybe required".
Cirrus would without doubt open themselves up to massive claims if under their advice a chute was deployed killing people in a built up area which could have been glided clear of with normal engine failure techniques and control of a flying aircraft.

Really beware of the chute it is an answer to some of the problems not all and needs using with caution as does the false sense of security it gives flying into weather or conditions neither the pilot or aircraft are up to.

NB snag the chute on your way down the mountain side and you will fall like a rock with neither aircraft control or a deployed chute.

Pace

[abgd]

I'm not quite certain what terrain you have in mind when you're concerned about them not working on a slope? Hang-glider pilots parachute onto windswept hillsides frequently, and whilst being dragged along has its dangers, it's generally survivable. Most things are survivable at 20mph, though perhaps not being dragged off the edge of a cliff.

In any case, you could glide to the center of the valley, then either land or open the parachute. Any reasonably wide valley should give you the option of not landing on a cliff-edge.

The only person I know personally who's used an emergency parachute was a hang-glider pilot who was aerotowing in Florida. She landed in an alligator-infested swamp and got an open tibial fracture. The deployment had been accidental - something caught on the parachute handle and yanked it accidentally.

[007helicopter]

A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

Sorry Maoraigh1 but this accident is about the worst example I can imagine of someone not using the BRS Chute, this was not a forced landing but some bloke who survived CFIT, he was crossing the Rocky Mountains, at night, crap weather, tried to divert, could not see the runway, went around and flew into the mountain side, 16500ft in an SR20 not good let alone these conditions (as I recall he had his young son on board) an absolute disgrace and I would say a complete idiot who should never have set off in those conditions.

I can dig out the report if anyone interested and my comments are from memory.

Your post gives the opinion that it might be a good idea to try this, and uses this accident as an example of success as if decision making process and skill was the reason for success , with a BRS equiped aircraft I frankly think this would be total and utter madness but each to their own. Maybe in a Maule or cub or something but in a Cirrus in mountains or totally inhospitable terrain pull the damn chute.

[007helicopter]

I do not see this as any reflection on the fact that there is a strong likelihood that someone on the ground will be killed by a cirrus in the future especially with a vertical or near vertical descent into a heavy built up area.

Pace I made the point in your specific example at 1000ft on take off, that is my choice and not Cirrus SOP, so I assume you are referring to my preference in this scenario you gave, I assume over the last decade hundreds of people have been injured on the ground with light aircraft crashes (just a guess)

following the several hundred BRS chute pulls, No one, ZERO has been injured on the ground, the next one will be the first, sure it has to happen eventually but the risk is irrelevant based on history.

Equally I imagine there are few pulls over built up areas (I know of one) hopefully they are rare as generally you can glide to a better area which I would do if sufficient altitude where no one has been injured.

If insufficient altitude for whatever reason my opinion is less risk to those on the ground and those on board by using the Chute.

[abgd]

Well, fairly shortly when a pilot suffers an engine failure, he need only press the alarm button and the autopilot will take over, flying the Cirrus upwind of the most suitable landing area in the vicinity using google map and GPS. It will then compare GPS with the pitot input to work out the windspeed at its current altitude, and computational fluid dynamics and a terrain database to work out what the wind gradient will be all the way down.

When the autopilot has positioned the aircraft at exactly the right spot, it will activate the BRS parachute and the wind will carry you to within a few yards of your predetermined landing spot - perhaps a tennis court or the roof of a skyscraper where you will touch down safely with minimal risk to anyone on the ground.

I'm being slightly facetious, but I see no reason why it isn't possible, apart from probably needing a park rather than a tennis court.

[paulp]

A parachute descent in mountains does not appeal to me. Hitting a steep slope seems likely to be a disaster. A glide to a controlled "landing", perhaps up a chosen slope, seems safer to me. What looks impossible from high up can look much better from in the valley. And if there are 30 kt gusts at the altitude you touch the ground, the aircraft will drag. (Cirrus - quoted in NTSB report, Colorado accident)

This is precisely the scenario when I would pull. In 2004 an SR20 chute pull happened at night over the Canadian Rockies with the plane coming down on a steep slope. I wish I could find pictures. The plane slid a little on the slope but radioed an airliner for help. The plane was eventually lifted out by the chute straps. A video with the pilot and his grandson shows just a little but doesn't really give a good picture of how rugged the terrain there is. Testimonial - Cirrus Save - YouTube

[paulp]

Sorry for the sales pitch video. It was the only thing I could find. At one time there were great photos online of this accident site.

The was also an ABC news report saying people on the ground may have been saved during another chute pull since they got out of the way as the plane descended. The link is no longer good unfortunately.

[paulp]

Maoraigh1 - If you are talking about the Kremmling, CO accident then the pilot was very lucky. There was a great analysis of this accident in IFR magazine where it points out the need to brief the missed. The SR20 couldn't meet the climb requirements for the missed of the GPS approach. The VOR approach would have been better. I have flown that area and there is slow rising terrain after the runway ends. Hmm, IFR in storms in an SR20 in the Rockies at night. One lucky pilot. The pilot didn't pull because he was trying to land but never saw the runway (forgot to turn on the lights?) and was going missed.

[Pace]

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. if Altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required.

Paul

Going by Cirrus recommendation no mention is made of using the chute as a standard procedure for engine failure.
I actually wonder at the insurance implications of knowingly writing off an aircraft which is perfectly flyable by pulling the chute when there are suitable landing sites below using conventional methods?
Writing off the Cirrus under a chute in a field the size of Heathrow would I am sure raise some eyebrows and many questions?
Especially if using a chute as a standard engine failure procedure did not have Cirrus blessing and recommendation.
The chute method is understandable over areas which do not offer suitable forced landing sites and that includes built up areas where gliding clear is not possible.
Having said that I have moved my opinion slightly towards the benefits of the chute but would not consider the chute as a standard recovery method for any engine failure without Cirrus placing that advice in black and white as part of a SOP.
One thing that has come clear is that pilots of singles need to take every opportunity of practicing forced landings even if it is onto the runway so they are comfortable with the judgments needed in the event of the real thing.
A lot more needs to be done on field selection and identification of hazards and an even greater amount on multi tasking and spatial awareness.

Someone needs to write to Cirrus for an opinion before teaching the use of the chute in the manner suggested here as even as a school or instructor you are open to liability implications by teaching or suggesting such methods if not rubber stamped by Cirrus.


Pace

[paulp]

Pace - You bring up a good point which has been discussed with several insurance companies. First, while Cirrus claims the plane will be totaled (legal reasons?) several aircraft have been repaired and returned to service. Even when the outcome is good for the passengers, off airport landings often result in significant damage to planes like a Cirrus. The speed, weight and small tires change the odds compared to a Piper Cub. The attitude of the insurance companies has been interesting. One said "We want you alive so we can insure your next plane." in general the companies seem more worried about passenger injuries compared to airframe cost. BRS has an excellent record of leaving passengers in good shape.

[Pace]

Paul

But then you have to get a definative response from Cirrus. It is all very good stating how good the chute is and all the safety benefits in all scenarios but Cirrus write the manuals. Once Cirrus state their opinion you can teach and train to that opinion and the buck stops with Cirrus.
Until then all you have is the wishy washy recommendation from Cirrus obviously covering their back.

Pace

[paulp]

An "interesting" exercise would be to select suitable fields from the air. It would need to be done at a reasonable altitude since down low means the decision is made for you. Pick one when 4000' AGL. Land, drive there, and ask the owner to let you drive your car on the field at 100 kph. This will be a best case scenario due to much larger tires on the car and much lower likelihood the front tires of the car will dig in and flip the vehicle but interesting all the same.

[Pace]

Paul

100kph? Thought we talked in Kts
Like it or not how the chute is used should be recommended by Cirrus as that is where the insurance companies will run to when they do not want to pay out.
All is fine with insurance companies until they have a major claim then make sure all Is are dotted! Otherwise they will dot them for you! Aircraft destroyed method not recommended or backed by manufacturer??? Perfectly flyable aircraft by a properly trained pilot needlessly destroyed by pulling a chute in a situation not recommended by the manufacturer and against their operating procedures.

Let me give you a scenario without manufacturer backing. Pilot X took off and climbing away from the runway passing 1500 feet lost all power.
Pilot X had recieved training where he was told in all engine failure situations to avoid a forced landing and use the chute as a SOP.
Below was a large field which pilot X felt comfortable he could land in but no his instructors told him to use the chute.
Pilot X pulled the chute and at first all was going well. Across the field were high power cables the aircraft descended into the cables collapsing the chute.
The aircraft then fell vertically to the ground Killing the passengers.
Recovering from his injuries pilot X attended the court and explained that he felt he was capable of having landed into the field but had pulled the chute as that was what he was taught in his training.
The training company were asked where they got that recommendation from? Not from Cirrus! Who would be sued?


Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - I had largely backed out of this discussion but I am genuinely concerned at the line you are taking.

I said earlier we must all live in the real world; forgive me I am not sure you are. It is no good judging this through your experienced eyes. There are pilots who fly the minimum number of hours a year - they are legal, and they are entitled to do just that. There are pilots with a few hundred hours to their credit - they are legal. There are pilots (many) that will make a pretty ham fisted effort at a forced landing - there are many, I know! There are plenty of these pilots that read this forum and doubtless a few that fly Cirrus or other aircraft with chutes.

You may well say they should be better at FLs, be more current or whatever, but in the real world they are not and nor will they be. I repeat, they are legal and the law considers they are fit to act in command.

Cirrus recognise that one of the most important skills a pilot must exercise is judgement. I really don't think pilots should be coerced into not using the chute by reading this thread. Its not a man thing, and their is no disgrace in using the chute, but it could well be a life and death decision. Rightly or wrongly I reckon for many the outcome will be better with the chute in most situations than without.

So I am sure that its not where you are coming from but I genuinely think there is a real danger in making anyone feel perhaps they should resort to a conventional forced landing when for whatever reason there judgement would have been to the contrary.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

... but I genuinely think there is a real danger in making anyone feel perhaps they should resort to a conventional forced landing when for whatever reason there judgement would have been to the contrary.

Yes, and from an insurance perspective I think the equivalent of the Strasser scheme is needed - in other words, whatever choice the pilot chooses to make shouldn't have any bearing on the subsequent position taken by the insurers, thus removing at least some of the financial considerations from the decision making process.

I can imagine many circumstances in which the decision would not be straightforward and I wouldn't want to pass judgment on anyone who found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to make the call.

[Pace]

Fuji
If you read my last post you would see that I actually state that I have shifted my position a little mainly in areas where I accept the chute could be used!
We have discussed issues with having the chute where inexperienced or pilots lacking currency could be lured into situations purely by having the confidence in having the chute where they have to use it.
We have discussed potential collateral damage that pulling the chute over a built up area rather than gliding clear could have on innocent parties!
Finally we have discussed insurance issues? And getting Cirrus to back what has been suggested ? Ie using the chute as a standard engine failure Procedure.
I would have thought that was a vital prerequisite to any standard procedure ? Acknowledgement and acceptance by the manufacturer.
On top of that for those who feel they are lacking in basic skills I suggested honing those skills so they are more confident.
For speaking that truth and asking sensitive questions I get attacked.
Who is blindly sticking their heads in the sand ?
You maybe right I am not that arrogant to say your not ! The chute maybe the safest option in engine failure with the mix of pilot capability but then get the manufacturer to back that stance and before you knock me too much remember the majority of low time pilots do not have the luxury of that choice and face a forced landing like it or not !
The proportion of Cirrus drivers compared to aircraft without a chute recovery system is minute! What advice do you give them?

Pace

[paulp]

There have been many chute pulls. There hasn't been an issue with the insurance companies. Even though a couple of the pulls were questionable (my opinion) the insurance companies seem more afraid of discouraging the use of BRS. Any death usually results in maximum payout from the insurer. That seems to be what they want to avoid. If you look at the accident record there are a lot more cases of "Why didn't he?" than of "Why did he?"