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

[mad_jock]

421C there are bigger things to sort out in the UK in flight instruction apart from technology.

They can't get ex 1-13 and stalling taught properly.

Your job for PPL is to teach basic flying skills. Anything above the basics is for post qualification.

Alot of PPL have learned to just play dumb with instructors just to get through check rides. Claim they don't know how to do the subjects which have the most variation between instructors and see how this one likes to do it.

To be able to progress onto technology you have to have a foundation in the basics. Currently there are folk out there that can't fly straight and level in trim.

Currently there is no room in the PPL to do any extra without missing the basics out.

An 8th subject in the theory I wouldn't object to. But know there would be much nashing of teeth and complaints if they tried to bring it in.

[A and C]

Having looked at the photos avalable of the area were this inccident happend it is clear that the options for a forced landing were to say the least limited.

The chute gave the pilot another option and (in my opinon) he was wise to use the chute option, this resulting in the perfect outcome.

What I think it illistrates well is that as soon as the red handle is pulled you are a passenger who's landing place is now down to chance. I think as long as the chute is used as a last option it is a good thing to have, used as a get out of jail free card to get the unskilled out of trouble it is likely to kill more people tan it saves.

[peterh337]

Having looked at the photos avalable of the area were this inccident happend it is clear that the options for a forced landing were to say the least limited.

You may very well be right but all that those pictures actually prove is that there was a forest directly below

My GF has a PhD in philosophy and unfortunately some of it has rubbed off

On the wider issue of Cirrus chute pulls, yes the chute saves lives but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning, poor in-flight judgement, etc, will merely lead to rising insurance premiums for those who want to buy a nice shiny new piston plane, for which the choice is, currently, ahem, Cirrus or Cirrus and very little else.

If we all spent our lives crossing the Pyrenees (as I have done today) and little else then I am sure our attitudes to the chute would be different, but on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middle.

For that kind of flying, or something more bening (and I reckon 99% of UK GA flying is more benign) I would not attach much value to a chute.

[Fuji Abound]

Peterh while i know you have often spoken about having good landing sites with respect i would once again caution such an assumtion. I hope you never put it to the test but as i have also said many times a good landing site at 2,000 feet can look less good at 1,000 feet and a whole lot less good at 500 feet. I use to land on a strip on the side of a hill on the up slope of a small valley. The strip was actually in pretty good nick but i would tell anyone the first few times were interesting. All you need is a few lumps and bumps and it adds to the interest. In fact there are some really good strips in france that will test your pfls.

In short perhaps i am wrong but i just worry a little that many assume a FL is a sinch. Plenty go wrong, and often its just bad luck, the field that looked so good at 2000 feet looked less good at 500 but by then the pilot was committed.

Are ppl trainees till taught what to look out for in field selection?

[peterh337]

I wasn't thinking of fields where one could land and then take off from.

That is a very tall order and the vast majority of the countryside is not good for that - unless the plane is a STOL type (a Maule ).

Most "horizontal" cultivated fields can be landed in, if a subsequent takeoff is not required, with minimal skill.

[007helicopter]

On the wider issue of Cirrus chute pulls, yes the chute saves lives but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning

Peter, sorry you are completely wrong here.

Sure a few chute pulls the Pilot should never have set off on the journey and made a gross error of judgement, possibly like the only one in the UK, ie the oxford one, either inadeverdent VFR into IMC or intentional, either way Pilot error. He made a bad judgement but fortunately the chute saved his bacon unlike the hundreds that do the same thing in other types and die. I think this type of pull is in fact rare, most just carry on and kill themselves and forget they have even got a chute as an option.

The vast majority of Cirrus pulls are appropriate and are genuine life saving scenarios. I could bore you to death with the details of everyone but will refrain.

I would put 100% of the Cirrus Chute Pulls in the last appx 2 years in that category, that is a grand total of 2, this one and the Bahamas as far as I recall.

The problem with the Cirrus and the Chute is to many Cirrus Pilots die with a perfectly good chute intact in the plane.

In roughly the same time period at least 10+ other fatalaties where you just think why on earth did they not use the damn thing.

[007helicopter]

If we all spent our lives crossing the Pyrenees (as I have done today) and little else then I am sure our attitudes to the chute would be different, but on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middle.

I do not know the landing ability of a TB20 in fields, I assume it has happened a reasonable amount of times with good and bad outcomes.

A Cirrus is probably worse than most GA aircraft due to the small wheels and higher than average landing speed.

In terms of when I am flying a Cirrus I have a pre determined decision already made that it is not an option I will take however good the field looks. Whatever happens in the event of an off airport landing required it will be at 17 knots vertically for better or worse.

I believe the risk of cart wheeling in rough fields, hitting rocks, ditches, crops, wires, animals, pot holes, ploughed fields, coming up short etc etc is to high a risk for me and passengers when a better option exists. A lot of these are not obvious at 1000ft plus.

[peterh337]

All high perf singles will have Vs=59kt, because anything lower cripples performance and anything higher is not allowed on Part 23 SE (some exceptions e.g. TBM700 C2 etc which are ~65kt).

I guess the SR20/22 is disadvantaged for forced landings because the gear cannot be retracted.

The vast majority of Cirrus pulls are appropriate and are genuine life saving scenarios

We will have to disagree there.

But maybe not if one takes it in the proper context which is limited quality (for the aircraft type) PPL training, coupled with the "airliner" advertising methods.

[mad_jock]

But apparently Peter it is unreasonable to expect pilots to fly at the correct speeds.

[007helicopter]

We will have to disagree there.

But maybe not if one takes it in the proper context which is limited quality (for the aircraft type) PPL training, coupled with the "airliner" advertising methods.

Happy to disagree but I just wonder what you base this opinion on?

This one for example was a very experienced instructor, and the previous Bahamas one an extremely seasoned Pilot.

[007helicopter]

I guess the SR20/22 is disadvantaged for forced landings because the gear cannot be retracted.

I am actually quite happy and now prefer fixed gear, I must admit I was quite paranoid in the 100 or so hours I did in a PA28RT that some sort of distraction would happen and I would forget to put it down, and it seems from evidence that plenty of others have done gear up unintentional landings.

The only emergency landing I have made with all fire engines out etc was when the front nose gear hydraulic ram sheared and the front nose wheel would not lock in and was just hanging down limply, fortunately before landing when we slowed right down gravity allowed it to lock in.

[421C]

on the whole flight from Barcelona I would say I had easy and very obvious forced landing options 99% of the time except over the mountains, and about 90% of the time over the mountains which were crossed in the middle

what about at night or with low overcast?

[VMC-on-top]

It simply bemuses me why there is an anti-cirrus sector on pprune and within GA generally. Perhaps it is simply down to envy? i have no idea but I cannot see, having followed numerous "anti-cirrus" threads, why there should be any other reason other than that stated. For instance, it is difficult to imagine that all cirrus pilots are trained poorly (as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots) ; all Cirrus pilots are under qualified, blinkered and dumb, as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots? there's a bit of theme running here isn't there?

I have no data to hand but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can provide such stats which directly compares the number of pro-rata (by type) non-Cirrus SEP fatalities over say, the last 10 years with Cirrus chute pulls? Is there such data available? Surely, the stats for living / deceased, should speak for themselves and keep the cynics quiet once and for all?

[Fuji Abound]

Peterh no i wasnt talking about landing and taking off. My example was only to illustrate a "good" strip can be more difficult than one might think when it comes to the crunch.

All this talk of FL creates the impression they are easy; the evidence is plenty go wrong even into good looking fields.

A good friend of mine killed himself and his partner. He had 4,000 hours all in light aircraft, i flew with him a bit he was a good pilot, the field was pretty good too but it all went horribly wrong - it happens to the best, and i think any FL should be taken very seriously.

Thats the point i wanted to make.

[paulp]

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.

Real world data says there is no issue. The only injury was a cracked vertebrae and in that case the engine was being used in an attempt to steer the plane. BRS says that may have caused air to spill and the descent rate to increase.

[paulp]

peterh337 Have you looked through the list of chute pulls? I have. In some cases I think there was awful decision making that got the pilot into the situation but I can only think of two that I would seriously second guess.

[421C]

but the seemingly high % of pilots who pull the chute in circumstances that suggest poor or nonexistent preflight planning, poor in-flight judgement

really, go on and tell me that non-Cirrus accidents don't equally share those circumstances!

[peterh337]

what about at night or with low overcast?

Then you buy a 421C, or some other twin, if you want the extra capability and the extra peace of mind, and you pay the extra running cost.

Or something with a PT6 up front.

There is a continuous spectrum of mission capability and operating cost.

But there are - for most GA flyers - almost no airports that you can land at after flying in the dark.

The overcast issue one can address to a degree by running an appropriate type of topo GPS moving map, non-IFR.

Have you looked through the list of chute pulls? I have. In some cases I think there was awful decision making that got the pilot into the situation but I can only think of two that I would seriously second guess.

Thinking of the reports I have read, I think the "awful decision making" is what I had in mind, preflight perhaps.

OTOH I speak as a cautious IFR flyer, who is quite picky about icing conditions and crappy/convective weather generally. There are many IFR flyers who more or less always go and I am sure they would have a different view. My view is that a non-deiced non-radar-equipped plane needs to be used fairly cautiously, especially if it is "plastic" in which case you are relying totally on bonding.

For instance, it is difficult to imagine that all cirrus pilots are trained poorly (as opposed to all non-Cirrus pilots)

I don't think that is the case; in fact Cirrus pilots should, by now, be trained better than average, due to insurance industry pressure (in the USA, at least).

But Cirrus have done two things which are fairly new in this very stale industry: (1) they have dug up a new stratum of flyers, often younger men (rather than the cantankerous old codgers who make up the bulk of the GA community which traditional GA products have been aimed at) and (2) they have advertised with ads which tended to emphasise the simplicity of flying their machines, and their use for casual personal and business travel.

(1) has been a great service to GA which has seen a continuous decline since the 1960s. It may draw out some new truly daft pilots but I am not sure that's the case because so many "old" pilots have got away with bad habits for years, by luck.

(2) I do have an issue with; I think it is misleading. Cirrus are not the only one; look at the recent Cessna 400 ads with that stupid businessman saying he can now do 3 meetings a day. Anybody who knows how aircraft performance and equipment maps onto weather capability, assuming a non-cowboy, will know it's a con.

[paulp]

especially if it is "plastic" in which case you are relying totally on bonding.

Huh??????????

The Cirrus airframe is extremely strong. On the Columbia they cut one of the two wing spars and still passed testing. Partly due to very conservative certification requirement, composite planes are very strong. The only inflight breakup of a Cirrus was in a dive at close to 300 knots when the chute was deployed.

The Cirrus wing is sensitive to ice and I find that the Cirrus will often have frost on it when metal planes won't. I admit that I fear ice more than thunderstorms. I can see and avoid thunderstorms.

Then you buy a 421C, or some other twin, if you want the extra capability and the extra peace of mind, and you pay the extra running cost.

Gee I guess you have so much money that operating cost isn't an issue. In that case just buy a Gulfstream. I can't afford the operating cost of a 421.

FYI, Cirrus offers a FIKI certified plane. Most Cirrus aircraft have the less capable inadvertent ice system. In the US there is XM and Sirius weather to choose from. As long as you understand that the image may be 8 minutes delayed it is good from non-tactical weather decision making.

[A and C]

007 helicopter

Quote;-The only emergency landing I have made with all fire engines out etc was when the front nose gear hydraulic ram sheared and the front nose wheel would not lock in and was just hanging down limply, fortunately before landing when we slowed right down gravity allowed it to lock in.

Most light aircraft have a max speed to freefall the gear, I am interested to know if a speed is quoted in the Piper PoH ?