Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12

[stickandrudderman]

There's not a lot to discuss here.
**** hit the fan, pilot pulled the chute, everyone lived, insurance paid the owner for the aeroplane, owner buys new aeroplane, pilot flies again, armchair dwellers remove knickers and tie them in knots, other armchair dwellers complain that the knot is a reef knot when it should have been a bowline or a sheepshank.
The rest of us get on with our lives.....

[paulp]

Mad_jock: Your comment about cruise hours makes no sense. The last two Cirrus fatals were cross country VFR into IMC scenarios. Do you really think flying the pattern is riskier?

[mad_jock]

Well documented.

The approach, landing and departure phases I think in that order, you are way way more likely to get killed than the enroute phase.

I would have to go and wade through a power point presentation but its something like only 10% of accidents happen in the cruise segment and of that 90% of them are fatal due to crew error and were recoverable.

High and low power settings are when engines are most likely to fail. Round the pattern is when you most likely to get close to both the ground, other aircraft and have to do some piloting **** all high work load. Not suprising its when most accidents occur.

[007helicopter]

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.

Round numbers of ground speed Mad Jock, if you think you are going to come in at perfect stall speed, 4 up as in this crash, fuel weight not known, wind strength and direction not known, under extreme pressure, then I think you are kidding yourself on your skills while under an extremely stressful situation.

Best Glide speed btw is 87-88 knots but that is not relevant to landing or approach speed.

Much better 17 knots vertical speed in the scenario of this accident,

[mad_jock]

You don't fly a speed, you fly an attitude which doesn't change with weight or any of the others factors you mention. Whats ground speed got to do with it? your in the air.

And yes to those tolerances can be done very easily in fact its not uncommon for 15 hour PPL student to be able to do it.

Maybe a SEP(cirrus) class rating is in order which negates the need for normal piloting/PIC skills. And just has pull the handle for any emergency actions.

[paulp]

You don't fly a speed, you fly an attitude which doesn't change with weight or any of the others factors you mention.

Since you seem to be picky I don't think this is correct. Attitude does change with weight. At a fixed power setting, increasing weight will cause a change in pitch if altitude is to be maintained. As far as a stall is concerned perhaps you mean angle of attack.

[paulp]

Well documented.

The approach, landing and departure phases I think in that order, you are way way more likely to get killed than the enroute phase.

I would have to go and wade through a power point presentation but its something like only 10% of accidents happen in the cruise segment and of that 90% of them are fatal due to crew error and were recoverable.

High and low power settings are when engines are most likely to fail. Round the pattern is when you most likely to get close to both the ground, other aircraft and have to do some piloting **** all high work load. Not suprising its when most accidents occur.

You might take a look at the graph on page 37 of the document I posted the link to. You do have to read between the lines on it a little but I see the breakout as closer to half if you add up the various categories into two types. In looking at Cirrus accidents for 2010 through mid 2011 I do see a lot of takeoff and landing accidents but a lot of them involve bad weather. My point was that planes that are cross country oriented get put in more challenging situations than ones just taken out for a trip around the pattern or a hop 20 miles away.

[mad_jock]

Nope attitude. The picture will always be the same with the engine not working just before the critical angle of attack. You can't see angle of attack you can only see attitude. The resultant airspeed will change with weight (but very little in a GA machine). Works on big things as well when you get 15-20knts across the operational weight band for the approach speeds. Only screws up if you have a increased Vref due to Vcma issues.

Which is why some of us teach a series of pictures for the different stages of flight. Once the pilot has them in there heads they will never get near stall and the ASI is just a bonus to confirm what they know already. Takes quite a bit off the work load if the pilot can just pitch for the best glide speed attitude and then put the ruff required amount of trim in instead of having to focus on the ASI and chase the needle until they get it right. Do you really think instructors look over at the ASI to get the best glide speed when we are demonstrating?

PPL student with all the instruments covered can do a spot on PFL at exactly the right speed in my experence, as long as they have been taught the basics properly.

Again it comes down to the first lessons building the foundation for everything else. Rushed into the circuit or not given enough time to get them understood at the fundemental level and it is with the pilot for life.

[007helicopter]

Whats ground speed got to do with it? your in the air.

Bugger all, we were talking about landing speed in a field, I quoted around 70 Knots which could easily be the case even with someone of your extremely well honed handling ability.

[englishal]

I wasn't there, I didn't pull the handle, I didn't see what lies below. But anyway THE pilot did pull the handle and it was the right decision as 4 people walked away with their lives, virtually unhurt (though I am sure they were prescribed Valium being in the USA). I am sure there are arm chair Skygods out there who would swoop their stricken bird into a nice smooth pasture, and save lives and aircraft and be met with tea and biscuits, but when faced with minutes to make a decision, it is better to make the right decision than faf around. For all we know this pilot is a high time NASA test pilot (MB: Some of them do fly for fun too) or an aerobatics ace and THEY made this decision. So lets get on with life, or rather lets get a life rather than bitch and moan because 4 people survived an aeroplane accident.

[mad_jock]

Afraid not, I think you need to go flying with an old school instructor preferably ex mil for your hour with an instructor next time.

And I ain't unusual I am afraid. 15 hour ppl students can do it in a clapped out tommy with a crappy sprung trimmer.

[paulp]

Here are some good pictures of where the aircraft came down.

[Contacttower]

I think the debate about the chute and forced landings is a bit of a dead end. Of course having the chute shouldn't reduce the emphasis on them in training because in the right circumstances a forced landing can be a better option than pulling, if one can see a big flat field or indeed an airport in range then that is probably a better option than surrendering control of the aircraft to the chute. Over bad terrain the balance will fall more the chute's favour. By having both good training and the chute we can make flying even safer. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that this is some sort of 'slippery slope' at the bottom of which is no emergency training at all beyond pulling it...and nor should it be.

In the end the pilot faced with the situation has to decide and without having been in that situation it is impossible to know the exact set of circumstances that he was faced with. By having two options the chances of survival are increased as proved in this case.

What is a far more interesting question, and much more pertinent to the question of what impact the chute has on flight safety is whether it has a physiological impact on pilots in terms of taking risks that they otherwise wouldn't....

[mad_jock]

Its what I was trying to get at contact but as usual didn't put it across well.

And also does the chute effect what would be the normal decision making process.

ie would a pilot choose an option which carried higher risk because the chute was there as backup.

[mary meagher]

The Cirrus pilot who pulled his chute quite near Shenington Gliding Club no doubt saved his bacon, but one certainly has to question his competence. His emergency was entirely self-generated, caused by programming in a 180 degree turn when encountering a bit of IMC, and forgetting to make sure his Cirrus stayed right side up.

I know when I would have been quite happy to have a ballistic recovery chute installed on my light aircraft, and that was in SEP at night....love flying at night over the US of A, such pretty lights, but it does make selecting a suitable field just a tad dodgy.....

Most of us can't afford this sort of equipment, and the craft I usually fly never suffers engine trouble, not having any. So we are quite at ease selecting suitable fields...

How does the Cirrus do, I wonder, when the chute is pulled over open water?

[Solar]

Mary
There was some debate that pulling the chute over water would increase the chance of injury as the undercarrige can not absorb some of the energy.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by mary meagher

The Cirrus pilot who pulled his chute quite near Shenington Gliding Club no doubt saved his bacon, but one certainly has to question his competence. His emergency was entirely self-generated, caused by programming in a 180 degree turn when encountering a bit of IMC, and forgetting to make sure his Cirrus stayed right side up.

Absolutely the skill deficit that led to this accident needs to be addressed but the bottom line is clear. Not having the option of pulling the chute meant that this could vary well have ended like so many other unintentional entry into IMC tragedies, a total loss of control leading to a VNE spiral dive and inflight break up.

GA does not need any more dead pilots !

If a chute saves the life of some guy and his family who Facked Up in a major way I say GOOD !

The bigger question IMO is why is the flight training industry not doing a better job at preparing pilots to prevent the purely pilot caused accidents , like carb ice or fuel exhaustion caused engine failures, or the constant drip drip drip of reports of aircraft that run off the end of the runway/wheel barrow/ lose directional control in 5 kt crosswinds etc etc.....

[007helicopter]

How does the Cirrus do, I wonder, when the chute is pulled over open water?

Early Reflections on CAPS Pull #32 by Dick McGlaughlin in the Bahamas - Pull early, pull often! - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

Mary the most recent over water Chute pull details above and a successful outcome for Father and Daughter.

[421C]

Whilst in general, I'm with Jock about over-reliance on technology and the possibly tenuous airmanship of a few Cirrus pilots

Apologies for the thread drift, but I'd like to pick you and MJ up on this. I have had a bee-in-my-bonnet about this recently.

I attended a UK Instructor refresher seminar recenty for the first time. It was excellently organised and the wealth of experience both amongst presenters and attendees was very high.

There was little or no actual content or discussion that might not have been present 30 years ago or 90 years ago for that matter. Hours were spent on the minutae of various PFL methods. The only mention of new technology was the inevitable remark of "over-reliance" on it and the nodded mumbles of assent from most of the rest of the group.

It's an indictment of a PPL training culture, led from the top of the GA establishment, that seems obsessed with the "standards" to which an obsolete training paradigm of various "exercises" are delivered. If the aim of PPL training was to produce "cadets" flying in the local area in obsolete aircraft under the structured control of a quasi-military "flying school/club", it serves admirably. However, it fails pretty dismally in actually teaching people to exercise PPL privileges across the broader range of GA activities they might want to be involved in.

At the same time, people regularly crash light aircraft in the UK using methods and equipment which are dismally obsolete by the standards of modern aviation - see the Blackpool PA28 fatal ditching a few years ago, or the (thankfully non-fatal) training aircraft that crashed at night into the Yorkshire Dales last year on a navex whilst being true to the spirit of "not relying on modern technology". One presenter, in the context of infringements, reported that half the PPLs that came to him to rent an aircraft didn't know how to use a transponder. I am sure every one of these had their 1hr-with-an-instructor in the previous 2 years.

The problem in UK GA is an under-reliance on technology, especially in the training environment. It's one thing being 5-10 years behind modern aviation. I could just about see that in the early 2000s when glass cockpits, BRS and GPS were new. But, now in 2012, to be droning on about over-reliance whilst teaching PPLs nothing except a course that could have been written in the 1930s is a disgrace.

Sorry for the rant, had to get it off my chest, it's just the mindless way that phrase "over reliance on technology" keep popping up in the UK.

ps. PeterH - I owe you an apology. I did my PPL in the 1980s in the UK and I thought it was a pretty good course. Therefore I have disagreed with you over many years about UK PPL training and its "fitness-for-purpose". Some recent experience makes me realise you are right....

[englishal]

ie would a pilot choose an option which carried higher risk because the chute was there as backup.

Of course it does. I'd fly a Cirrus over the mountains and desert of California at night, but I would not take a 30 year old Tomahawk on the same flight. The Cirrus is a step down from a twin, in that you have a backup if an engine fails over hostile terrain or at night and so therefore can be used as a real go places plane by the family.

I have done some flights in the past, i.e. Phoenix to LA at 2am in a clapped out Archer which I'd think twice about now I have much more experience, but would do in a Twin or something with a BRS.

Regarding "piloting skills"...I recall many VMC into IMC accidents in non cirrus types...