BRS in a twin
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.
Pace
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.
Pace
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace --
You must have the only car I know of that is marked in knots. My car is in mph but since you live in a more enlightened country I used kph.
As for the scenario you mentioned you have a good imagination. It is all about likelihood. Imagine doing a forced landing and hitting someone (like the Lancair hitting the guy running on the beach) and then being asks why you didn't pull and come down in a way where people could avoid you. The fact is that there have been numerous uses of BRS and I don't know of one instance of a person on the ground being injured.
The thing about the BRS system is that it is an adder. It is one more thing available. Your argument about being sued over choice is no different than being sued because you chose emergency landing spot A over B and A resulted in someone getting injured.
You seem to think that all FL's turn out great. I think the data is that about 80% are survived but of that 80% there are many with severe injuries.
You also seem to think that FL's don't injure people on the ground. Where I live a person in a car was killed by a plane making an emergency landing on the road the car was on.
BRS is no magic bullet. Pilots still need to maintain the ability to do a good FL. I am just surprised at the resistance of the flying community to another tool at their disposal.
100kph? Thought we talked in Kts
As for the scenario you mentioned you have a good imagination. It is all about likelihood. Imagine doing a forced landing and hitting someone (like the Lancair hitting the guy running on the beach) and then being asks why you didn't pull and come down in a way where people could avoid you. The fact is that there have been numerous uses of BRS and I don't know of one instance of a person on the ground being injured.
The thing about the BRS system is that it is an adder. It is one more thing available. Your argument about being sued over choice is no different than being sued because you chose emergency landing spot A over B and A resulted in someone getting injured.
You seem to think that all FL's turn out great. I think the data is that about 80% are survived but of that 80% there are many with severe injuries.
You also seem to think that FL's don't injure people on the ground. Where I live a person in a car was killed by a plane making an emergency landing on the road the car was on.
BRS is no magic bullet. Pilots still need to maintain the ability to do a good FL. I am just surprised at the resistance of the flying community to another tool at their disposal.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul we are not talking about another option! This thread has been built around the chute now being advised for ANY engine failure not as an extra safety option which I welcome.
I still ask if it is so good and bulletproof compared to a forced landing why cannot you get Cirrus to endorse its use in the way many here are advocating.
I remind you of the Cirrus official position.
Again the chute is being recommended as a last resort failing a suitable landing area being located not as a primary means of dealing with engine failure.
I am not your problem in your quest you need to get Cirrus on board!! One poster here is so convinced that he claims he will use the chute as a primary recovery system from any engine failure over green fields or busy city centre! That itself is worrying? And why? Because he has no confidence in a forced landing! Something is very wrong somewhere?
Pace
I still ask if it is so good and bulletproof compared to a forced landing why cannot you get Cirrus to endorse its use in the way many here are advocating.
I remind you of the Cirrus official position.
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.
I am not your problem in your quest you need to get Cirrus on board!! One poster here is so convinced that he claims he will use the chute as a primary recovery system from any engine failure over green fields or busy city centre! That itself is worrying? And why? Because he has no confidence in a forced landing! Something is very wrong somewhere?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 28th Jun 2012 at 20:08.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual? Engine failure procedure! Attempt restart or failing that immediately use the chute system!
It should be part of their SOPs as any other procedure.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case anyone is curios here is an interesting presentation by Rick Beach on data regarding the Cirrus BRS system. Rick does NOT represent Cirrus Aircraft. He has made it his mission to look deeply into every Cirrus accident and this has resulted in him being strongly opinionated on the subject. It is an interesting presentation with real world operational data. Some of this has been taken from the data stored by the avionics which on a Cirrus is quite extensive. Since the plane stays pretty much intact after a pull, this data has been recoverable and allowed analysis including deceleration and descent rate in real world use.
Last edited by paulp; 28th Jun 2012 at 20:27.
Because life is grey. Pilot skill level varies. Situations vary. Being over a paved runway is different than being over rugged mountains. The attitude of Cirrus seems to be that BRS is one more thing for the pilot to consider based on his particular situation. As data from its use has built up I will say more and more members of COPA (where this is heavily discussed) are leaning towards pulling if it will be off airport. Why are you insisting that the manufacturer tell you what to do as a pilot?
The other thing people talk about here is the shame of destroying a perfectly good aircraft. What proportion of forced landings result in the destruction of the aircraft, I wonder?
I get the impression that quite a high proportion of forced landings destroy the aircraft even if the pilot can walk away. At least a few cirruses have been refurbished after accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you insisting that the manufacturer tell you what to do as a pilot?
If we get a problem I immediately go to the emergency checklist where the manufacturer tells me what to do.
I am sure you have a manufacturer flight manual which also tells you what to do?
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace come on you surely know why. America is the most litigeous place on earth. One of their motor manufacturers got taken to court for not saying "you must not leave the drivers seat with cruise control engaged".
If the engine fails one thing is for certain - you will land. As we have discussed the chute is not there for every circumstance or for every two buck lawyer to run the argument that the outcome would have been different without the chute.
Bottom line is if the chute goes wrong someone will have a pop at the pilot for pulling it. The converse is how about having a pop at the pilot for not pulling it when the FL goes wrong. There are two options, neither offers a guaranteed outcome, neither can, because lady luck will always have a part to play.
Thats why it is for the pilot to decide and rightly so. If the chute provided a guarantee cirrus would say othwise, it doesnt and no one has said otherwise.
If the engine fails one thing is for certain - you will land. As we have discussed the chute is not there for every circumstance or for every two buck lawyer to run the argument that the outcome would have been different without the chute.
Bottom line is if the chute goes wrong someone will have a pop at the pilot for pulling it. The converse is how about having a pop at the pilot for not pulling it when the FL goes wrong. There are two options, neither offers a guaranteed outcome, neither can, because lady luck will always have a part to play.
Thats why it is for the pilot to decide and rightly so. If the chute provided a guarantee cirrus would say othwise, it doesnt and no one has said otherwise.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
I hope you do not think I am bashing either you or Paul or Heli?
I do think this goes away from conventional thinking to such an extent that it warrants discussion. As I said Cirrus drivers are a Tiny proportion of the total pilot population who do not have the luxury of pulling a chute but have to rely on their skills or lack of skills in pulling off a forced landing.
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion
Between you and me I would love a share in a Cirrus with the Chute
Pace
I hope you do not think I am bashing either you or Paul or Heli?
I do think this goes away from conventional thinking to such an extent that it warrants discussion. As I said Cirrus drivers are a Tiny proportion of the total pilot population who do not have the luxury of pulling a chute but have to rely on their skills or lack of skills in pulling off a forced landing.
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion
Between you and me I would love a share in a Cirrus with the Chute
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 28th Jun 2012 at 21:17.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On top of that for those who feel they are lacking in basic skills I suggested honing those skills so they are more confident.
I do NOT feel I lack the basic skills, I do NOT lack confidence, I have made an informed judgement that in general on an off airport landing in a Cirrus my chances of survival of myself and my passengers is greater if I use BRS.
Reaching a suitable field is the easy part, once touching down and not having a further incident is the tricky part with many examples of death and botched landings due to flipping and hitting things due to an unknown surface.
Put a Cirrus down in a crop, boggy field or hit a tree stump at the speed required to land and you have a reasonable chance of hurting yourself and PAX.
In a helicopter I regularly do practice forced landings with no engine power to the ground, because this is the only option. This takes a certain amount of skill and confidence so please do not make out that this is my reason for using the BRS chute as a cop out to a forced landing , it is not.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 28th Jun 2012 at 22:17.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think this goes away from conventional thinking to such an extent that it warrants discussion. As I said Cirrus drivers are a Tiny proportion of the total pilot population who do not have the luxury of pulling a chute but have to rely on their skills or lack of skills in pulling off a forced landing.
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion
So no hard feelings just designed to generate a discussion
Traditional aircraft have no option and traditional pilots are trained with no other option in mind so there is a strong mindset of do not be a wimp, do not believe the marketing, blah blah the chute is for those without the skill or confidence who got them selves into trouble.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Paul no one is answering the questions I ask.
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual?
If the chute system is such a life saver supported by the insurance companies and with such a blemish free record compared to forced landings why are Cirrus so vague on its use?
Why is the recommendation not written in the manual?
Now with millions of flight hours and 80 odd fatal incidents I as a Pilot can make an informed decision for myself on how to best use this technology, which I have done and set myself my own SOP.
I do not know if Cirrus ever intend to modify the manual and likewise I do not understand or especially care how they need to cover their backs in a litigious world, I care about my own and pax safety and chances of survival.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One poster here is so convinced that he claims he will use the chute as a primary recovery system from any engine failure over green fields or busy city centre! That itself is worrying? And why? Because he has no confidence in a forced landing! Something is very wrong somewhere?
Why is it worrying and what is very wrong?
Even if I had an equal chance of survival using the chute compared to a forced landing, what is the problem?
Do you think I have less chance of survival if I use the chute compared to landing in a small filed with a few trees and hedges?
In my opinion I (and you) have a greater chance of survival using the chute than a forced off airport landing. Out of 100 each we would both likely get a few horribly wrong. Maybe me more than you, maybe not.
I also do not think I said any engine failure and 100% I would us the chute, but certainly where I can not be totally confident with the landing surface I would, this is my own personal SOP.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 28th Jun 2012 at 23:08.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - i dont for one moment think you are bashing us. Its interesting to have a robust discussion and as always you have made some very good points which have certainly challenged me. I hope you dont think i have done so to you either?
In short we are all still friends!
As i said earlier it is the uncertainty that causes the problem.
Whatever the pilot decides its going to be pretty difficult for the best advocate to prove the contrary position would have secured a better outcome so at least in that much you have a sound defense.
If you walk away from any fl with minor injury of less and no collateral damage in my book you have done a good job, its all that matters, the aircraft can be rebuilt or bought again.
If i landed with the chute outside this criteria i'd say it was bl@@@@ bad luck, but if i attempted a fl that proved to be a failure i would have to accept by your definition it was my fault unless of course you are willing to concede under chute on average the outcome is likely to be better.
In short we are all still friends!
As i said earlier it is the uncertainty that causes the problem.
Whatever the pilot decides its going to be pretty difficult for the best advocate to prove the contrary position would have secured a better outcome so at least in that much you have a sound defense.
If you walk away from any fl with minor injury of less and no collateral damage in my book you have done a good job, its all that matters, the aircraft can be rebuilt or bought again.
If i landed with the chute outside this criteria i'd say it was bl@@@@ bad luck, but if i attempted a fl that proved to be a failure i would have to accept by your definition it was my fault unless of course you are willing to concede under chute on average the outcome is likely to be better.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - Does your checklist tell you what field to land in or how to select it? When Sullenberger decided to ditch in the Hudson did the checklist tell him that was the best decision or was he trained to evaluate his choices and then take appropriate action? If I decide to use CAPS then there is a checklist for that. If I decide to do an engine out landing then there is a checklist for that too.
As an aside, since we are talking engine out scenarios, a new technology available in the experimental market is one which uses the AP to place the plane in best glide, take it to the closest suitable airport and glide it down to 200' above the runway. That's nothing a great pilot can't do but I have messed up my speed management when descending engine out from 5000' over the runway such that I am willing to admit a computer could do it better. In an emergency, I think I'll go with best chance at a great outcome instead of most macho pilot award.
As an aside, since we are talking engine out scenarios, a new technology available in the experimental market is one which uses the AP to place the plane in best glide, take it to the closest suitable airport and glide it down to 200' above the runway. That's nothing a great pilot can't do but I have messed up my speed management when descending engine out from 5000' over the runway such that I am willing to admit a computer could do it better. In an emergency, I think I'll go with best chance at a great outcome instead of most macho pilot award.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original question concerning twins. In a single engine failure you are going down. Twins give you the Option to stay up sadly pilots often do not handle that option too well.
With more options come more choices with more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice and I am sure the chute fits the same principal.
Over a built up area do you pull the chute or do you head for that grassy field in the distance? Will you make that field in the distance ?its a windy day! Do you pull the chute and get slammed at 30 mph into a building or do you use that wind to reduce your ground speed by 30 mph in a forced landing? I will look forward to owning a Cirrus as I think the chute holds a number of safety benefits which will save your life.
For force landing gadgets I could more see a garmin type function which displays a glide slope which will show you where you will land in any given direction! Not sure how the shuttle system worked as they keep landing at Luton airport with red faces
Going back to manufacturers yes Fuji the USA and Europe are both riddled with stupid liability claims. It used to be the USA now its Europe too.
But that can work both ways. If Cirrus are advising use of the chute as secondary to finding a suitable off airport landing strip and then with a caveat to consider using the chute if such a site does not exist!
Then that is hardly a rubber stamping of the chute to be used for all engine failures.
Lets now imagine that overwhelming evidence points to the fact that you are far safer pulling the chute than attempting a conventional forced landing.
Cirrus would then be forced to amend their engine failure procedures for fear of being seen as negligent for not stipulating the use of the chute.
Paul yes we do have manufacturer flight manuals which tell us what to do and what procedures to follow.
They cannot cover every situation and that comes down to good old fashioned Airmanship, judgement, currency, spatial awareness and skill.
All the things which you both are claiming the pilots of today do not have hence the need for the chute.
Pace
With more options come more choices with more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice and I am sure the chute fits the same principal.
Over a built up area do you pull the chute or do you head for that grassy field in the distance? Will you make that field in the distance ?its a windy day! Do you pull the chute and get slammed at 30 mph into a building or do you use that wind to reduce your ground speed by 30 mph in a forced landing? I will look forward to owning a Cirrus as I think the chute holds a number of safety benefits which will save your life.
For force landing gadgets I could more see a garmin type function which displays a glide slope which will show you where you will land in any given direction! Not sure how the shuttle system worked as they keep landing at Luton airport with red faces
Going back to manufacturers yes Fuji the USA and Europe are both riddled with stupid liability claims. It used to be the USA now its Europe too.
But that can work both ways. If Cirrus are advising use of the chute as secondary to finding a suitable off airport landing strip and then with a caveat to consider using the chute if such a site does not exist!
Then that is hardly a rubber stamping of the chute to be used for all engine failures.
Lets now imagine that overwhelming evidence points to the fact that you are far safer pulling the chute than attempting a conventional forced landing.
Cirrus would then be forced to amend their engine failure procedures for fear of being seen as negligent for not stipulating the use of the chute.
Paul yes we do have manufacturer flight manuals which tell us what to do and what procedures to follow.
They cannot cover every situation and that comes down to good old fashioned Airmanship, judgement, currency, spatial awareness and skill.
All the things which you both are claiming the pilots of today do not have hence the need for the chute.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Jun 2012 at 08:47.
