Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by the interview footage (a previous pilot), it sounds like the chute was pulled after a stall/spin situation. So, in all probability, the pilot was trying to make a field but couldn't stretch the glide.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ, so why do you see pulling as giving up? What is it giving up, certainly not the will to live.
To, as you put it:
would necessitate there always being a guaranteed favourable outcome, this is clearly not the case, therefore giving up trying to put it on the ground and pulling is in fact a sensible option when other options have run out.
The difficult question is in determining when that point is.
Nail on the head with this one! I don't know the reason for accidents in spin training, however your above statement could be an influencing factor.
BB
To, as you put it:
never give up ever
The difficult question is in determining when that point is.
Originally Posted by MJ
But it should be done by an instructor who is competent to teach it
BB
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most appropriate way
MJock – there is an awful lot of info on the COPA website re when to pull and when not to. Bottom line is that CAPS could and should have saved many, many more lives if people had had enough awareness to pull the chute earlier. I think your “giving up” is the wrong term, pulling CAPS at the right time/occasion can demonstrate as much airmanship as a well executed forced landing. The more people that acknowledge this, the more lives will be saved.
Good post BPF
I wish I had BPS.
Good post BPF
I wish I had BPS.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ, so why do you see pulling as giving up? What is it giving up, certainly not the will to live.
Alot of us, well everyone that doesn't have a chute the only thing that is going to save us is our handling and decision making skills. Its a bit of a fundemental change in philosophy. And one that I don't think has matured in its application.
As I have said I am more than willing to accept that eventually it may become the norm to pull that handle if it gets a wee bit scary. We may get to that stage in my life time.
Personally I would object to all the extra fuel you burn carrying one about. But then again I have survived so far without one and I doudt very much if I will ever fly anything which would be so equiped. But in the grand scale of things I am a pro pilot but no sky god, relatively high hours compared to most GA and extremely current flying in a none autopilot twin but not so in a SEP.
I will promise though if I bite the bullet in a tommy I will have on my grave "they were right about those sodding chutes"
And realistically in the UK there will be less than 50 instructors that are truely competent to teach spinning. There will be a load out there that can patter it while doing a normal one which is what I used to do. But to actually deal with it when it goes wrong very few and most of them will be ex mil.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 12:04.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MJ
Personally I would object to all the extra fuel you burn carrying one about.
You could always go for the other option of leaving the beer alone to lose a percentage of the weight and make up the difference in fuel costs through saving the beer money?
BB
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a supid idea leaving the beer/cider out.
You will be saying that deep fried haggis in curry sauce and chips is also out.
Well to be honest my own personal risk assesment of the dangers versus cost is that its not worth the fuel. Yes for some it may very well be worth the extra. The way I operate/flight profile hopefully will provide more of a defense against a fatal accident than a chute.
I am up to 7 pilots that I have known that have been killed in GA aircraft. 6 of them definately wouldn't have been saved (CFIT and midair) and one of them nobody has a clue what happened. I know loads though that have had a bum clencher that have remained alive by not giving up and staying calm and applying basic pilot skills to sort things out.
It is nearly always the pilot that causes the accident by either mishandling or poor decision making. The chute I will admit is a solution to this problem.
Then there is that fateful day when your time is up and the all the cards are against you no matter how current experenced you are.
You will be saying that deep fried haggis in curry sauce and chips is also out.
Well to be honest my own personal risk assesment of the dangers versus cost is that its not worth the fuel. Yes for some it may very well be worth the extra. The way I operate/flight profile hopefully will provide more of a defense against a fatal accident than a chute.
I am up to 7 pilots that I have known that have been killed in GA aircraft. 6 of them definately wouldn't have been saved (CFIT and midair) and one of them nobody has a clue what happened. I know loads though that have had a bum clencher that have remained alive by not giving up and staying calm and applying basic pilot skills to sort things out.
It is nearly always the pilot that causes the accident by either mishandling or poor decision making. The chute I will admit is a solution to this problem.
Then there is that fateful day when your time is up and the all the cards are against you no matter how current experenced you are.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would consider the Cirrus 'chute to be similar to a reserve for a skydiver.
The instruction for a parachutist is very simple. If you have a problem with your main, try to deal with it. The very instant you realise you can't deal with it, panic sets in or you have any doubt whatsoever, get rid of it and pull your reserve - that's what it is there for.
Without doubt, no matter the reasons why, if I was in a similar situation in a Cirrus, I'd pull the reserve - end of.
Afterwards, people could argue why they would or wouldn't have done similar, I probably wouldn't care.
The stupid thing would be to die in crash and have people ask "Why didn't he pull the handle..?"
The instruction for a parachutist is very simple. If you have a problem with your main, try to deal with it. The very instant you realise you can't deal with it, panic sets in or you have any doubt whatsoever, get rid of it and pull your reserve - that's what it is there for.
Without doubt, no matter the reasons why, if I was in a similar situation in a Cirrus, I'd pull the reserve - end of.
Afterwards, people could argue why they would or wouldn't have done similar, I probably wouldn't care.
The stupid thing would be to die in crash and have people ask "Why didn't he pull the handle..?"
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add the first article that I read said they had started at 9000ft and then another one said they had deployed when trying to stretch the glide to get into the airport.
Quite a common issue with student pilots is a engine failure at altitude. They can bang the PFL in time and time again from 1000-2000ft. 5k plus way to many options even if you do it in the training area which they know like the back of thier hands.
On reading the 9000ft comment my thought was that it was a "nearest direct" with no thought about all those fields going underneith. They must of been flying for over 10 mins and covered over 10 miles.
I think it was BPF or DAR has said somewhere else its the partial engine failures that give the most problems not the out right engine failures. Personally if the sod starts giving me grief it would get treated as failed and a forced landing commenced. Trying to glide over ten miles away is never going to work. If the runway was inside 5 miles yep have a shot at it.
Quite a common issue with student pilots is a engine failure at altitude. They can bang the PFL in time and time again from 1000-2000ft. 5k plus way to many options even if you do it in the training area which they know like the back of thier hands.
On reading the 9000ft comment my thought was that it was a "nearest direct" with no thought about all those fields going underneith. They must of been flying for over 10 mins and covered over 10 miles.
I think it was BPF or DAR has said somewhere else its the partial engine failures that give the most problems not the out right engine failures. Personally if the sod starts giving me grief it would get treated as failed and a forced landing commenced. Trying to glide over ten miles away is never going to work. If the runway was inside 5 miles yep have a shot at it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the Pilot was a CSIP (An instructor who has done the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Program) if that is the case I am reasonably sure he weighed up all options and in his mind chose the best.
Mad Jock those fields look pretty appalling to me, landing at 70 knots under extreme pressure and 4 up there is I would guess a 50 / 50 chance of writing off the plane and having some serious injuries if not fatal's, that's if you got it in the field and were lucky enough to avoid all the trees and rocks.
Well done the Pilot for taking a good decision.
As for giving up the Beer and Cider I agree that would be ridiculous.
Mad Jock those fields look pretty appalling to me, landing at 70 knots under extreme pressure and 4 up there is I would guess a 50 / 50 chance of writing off the plane and having some serious injuries if not fatal's, that's if you got it in the field and were lucky enough to avoid all the trees and rocks.
Well done the Pilot for taking a good decision.
As for giving up the Beer and Cider I agree that would be ridiculous.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what you are used to 007.
Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.
Much better than the scottish loch, peat bog, xmas tree plantation or land rover track that were my options mostly.
10mins from 9k gives you a whole heap of distance and energy to get a good one.
And the other thing is that some pilots are extremely reluctant to shut an engine down. We get this in twins. A CSP produces more drag than a feathered one at low power settings or should I say production which completely screws with your performance and in regards to the twin can kill you because it can increase your minimum control speed to above what your Vyse speed is. The rudder runs out of authority and you have drag and one side and full power on the other and she just rolls. So you either have to take some power off which then leaves you in a worse situation than shutting the duff one down you have more drag and less power.
Instructors arn't gods we have all made multiple suspect decisions, which post event we wouldn't do again.
If there was such a lack of options for a forced landing should they even have been flying over the area?
Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.
Much better than the scottish loch, peat bog, xmas tree plantation or land rover track that were my options mostly.
10mins from 9k gives you a whole heap of distance and energy to get a good one.
And the other thing is that some pilots are extremely reluctant to shut an engine down. We get this in twins. A CSP produces more drag than a feathered one at low power settings or should I say production which completely screws with your performance and in regards to the twin can kill you because it can increase your minimum control speed to above what your Vyse speed is. The rudder runs out of authority and you have drag and one side and full power on the other and she just rolls. So you either have to take some power off which then leaves you in a worse situation than shutting the duff one down you have more drag and less power.
Instructors arn't gods we have all made multiple suspect decisions, which post event we wouldn't do again.
If there was such a lack of options for a forced landing should they even have been flying over the area?
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 13:19.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was such a lack of options for a forced landing should they even have been flying over the area?
When you have done PFLs how often have you decided at 500 feet you arent quite so keen on what you saw from 2,000 feet?
How often have you driven past a field that you have done PFLs over and thought I am quite pleased I never actually had to land in that field?
I am not saying it doesnt work a lot of the time. I am questioning how easy it is to be certain enough that the field is the best option at 2,000 feet; at 1,000 feet there arent many alternatives in a conventional aircraft, with a chute there is another alternative.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not very often to be honest most of them I didn't like from 2000ft either.
And my knock off height was considerably less than 500ft so the difference between car height and what we could see is virtually nill.
I am not desputing that, but to glide best part of 9000ft down struggling to get on some tarmac isn't really the best option is it?
Basically what you are saying is now that forced landings are a thing of the past for cirrus drivers. I don't have a problem with deciding the chute is the best option from 1000ft if your stuck over a cold lava field. Or your 1000ft and not visual with the ground.
But... In the vast majority of cases a forced landing is not fatal even if the field is the most unsuitable one within 100 miles if the pilot can see it.
And my knock off height was considerably less than 500ft so the difference between car height and what we could see is virtually nill.
I am not desputing that, but to glide best part of 9000ft down struggling to get on some tarmac isn't really the best option is it?
Basically what you are saying is now that forced landings are a thing of the past for cirrus drivers. I don't have a problem with deciding the chute is the best option from 1000ft if your stuck over a cold lava field. Or your 1000ft and not visual with the ground.
But... In the vast majority of cases a forced landing is not fatal even if the field is the most unsuitable one within 100 miles if the pilot can see it.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 15:22.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MJ
What a supid idea leaving the beer/cider out.
Originally Posted by MJ
I know loads though that have had a bum clencher that have remained alive by not giving up and staying calm and applying basic pilot skills to sort things out.
Originally Posted by MJ
treated as failed and a forced landing commenced
Originally Posted by Fuji
When you have done PFLs how often have you decided at 500 feet you arent quite so keen on what you saw from 2,000 feet?
BB
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, insurance is mostly driven by hull value and then by number of seats since that ups the injury liability. A Cirrus carries no premium over other planes.
My rough guess for off airport landings is:
BRS 99% survival 5% plane will fly again
Non-BRS 75% survival 60% plane will fly again
I favor life over property.
Why is the prevailing attitude of many that:
a) The pilot should die trying because he should have trained better
b) The passengers should die because they chose to fly with a poorly trained pilot
Here is an off airport landing by a Cirrus flown by a guy who thought the BRS system shouldn't be used if he saw a good field (that according to a friend of his and fellow Cirrus pilot). He had plenty of time. The ATC recordings have him telling ATC his intentions to dead stick it in.
In the case of the chute pull under discussion, ATC recordings have ATC giving the pilot clearance to Pickins County airport, having the trucks roll just in case and when the pilot says he can't make the field acknowledging the pilot's decision to activate BRS.
My rough guess for off airport landings is:
BRS 99% survival 5% plane will fly again
Non-BRS 75% survival 60% plane will fly again
I favor life over property.
Why is the prevailing attitude of many that:
a) The pilot should die trying because he should have trained better
b) The passengers should die because they chose to fly with a poorly trained pilot
Here is an off airport landing by a Cirrus flown by a guy who thought the BRS system shouldn't be used if he saw a good field (that according to a friend of his and fellow Cirrus pilot). He had plenty of time. The ATC recordings have him telling ATC his intentions to dead stick it in.
In the case of the chute pull under discussion, ATC recordings have ATC giving the pilot clearance to Pickins County airport, having the trucks roll just in case and when the pilot says he can't make the field acknowledging the pilot's decision to activate BRS.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plane was a write off as other have said so what if everyone walked away. Which to be honest happens alot check the AAIB reports.
Not really because its indecision that kills even if the most piss poor plan implamented correctly will have a better out come than a wait and see what happens. By controlling the situation you dominate it and create least suprises. Its the suprises that kill you, you focus on the job at hand. Trying to go somewhere else you are splitting your attention between are you going to make it, is there a field that we can get into, and in this case should I pull the chute.
Where as if you had just said right engine failure and dropped into your failure drill, alot less options, alot less work and alot more chance of it being successful. Which to be honest most forced landings are even if the airframe is written off which doesn't take much with the plastic aircraft.
I think 75% is a huge under estimation for the survivability rate.
Not really because its indecision that kills even if the most piss poor plan implamented correctly will have a better out come than a wait and see what happens. By controlling the situation you dominate it and create least suprises. Its the suprises that kill you, you focus on the job at hand. Trying to go somewhere else you are splitting your attention between are you going to make it, is there a field that we can get into, and in this case should I pull the chute.
Where as if you had just said right engine failure and dropped into your failure drill, alot less options, alot less work and alot more chance of it being successful. Which to be honest most forced landings are even if the airframe is written off which doesn't take much with the plastic aircraft.
I think 75% is a huge under estimation for the survivability rate.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 15:44.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 75% is a huge under estimation for the survivability rate.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently the US NTSB issued a report that broke out safety by type of flying. Most GA statistics mix all GA activities including instruction which has a better overall safety record. The report can be found here.
From data broken out by Rick Beach who keeps data on Cirrus flight hours and accidents:
From data broken out by Rick Beach who keeps data on Cirrus flight hours and accidents:
In reviewing the Cirrus accident history,
we have about 1 in 30 airplanes in the GA fleet (about 5,200 vs 155,000 single-engine piston fixed wing aircraft),
yet we are flying about 1 in 10 hours each year and
we experience about 1 in 17 fatal accidents in the past couple of years.
we have about 1 in 30 airplanes in the GA fleet (about 5,200 vs 155,000 single-engine piston fixed wing aircraft),
yet we are flying about 1 in 10 hours each year and
we experience about 1 in 17 fatal accidents in the past couple of years.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure about that?
HAve you got the figures to back that up.
Because I don't think the true accident figures will confirm your guess.
There are extremely few forced landings ending in a fatality per thousand of hours flown.
That graph is what we are discussing.
If you could get say one of dimonnd aircraft V cirrus you might be in with a shout. But comparing a multi type age range between 0 and 60 year old fleet is not comparing like with like.
In fact for a less than 10 year old aircraft that accident rate is pretty disgusting condidering most cirrus flight profiles will be staying in the relatively safe zone of cruise for the bulk of there hours.
HAve you got the figures to back that up.
Because I don't think the true accident figures will confirm your guess.
There are extremely few forced landings ending in a fatality per thousand of hours flown.
That graph is what we are discussing.
If you could get say one of dimonnd aircraft V cirrus you might be in with a shout. But comparing a multi type age range between 0 and 60 year old fleet is not comparing like with like.
In fact for a less than 10 year old aircraft that accident rate is pretty disgusting condidering most cirrus flight profiles will be staying in the relatively safe zone of cruise for the bulk of there hours.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 17:02.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what you are used to 007.
Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.
Some of those fields look splended to me, horse paddocks with a hill at the end. Full flap, sideslip it over the fence and stall her on and keep the nose up.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth are you trying to do flying at 10 knots over the stall speed while doing a performance landing?
Do you know how much extra energy you having to get rid of by carrying an extra 16% speed?
No wonder you think those fields are tight. Try doing a glide appoach at a more suitable 63knts and see how little runway you require.
Do you know how much extra energy you having to get rid of by carrying an extra 16% speed?
No wonder you think those fields are tight. Try doing a glide appoach at a more suitable 63knts and see how little runway you require.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jul 2012 at 17:19.