Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
At the time I was unaware of actually what the problem was, we heard a very loud bang when raising the under carriage which was the ram shearing, I did not know what the problem was at the time other than only 2 greens and the tower saying the nose wheel was hanging down when we did a low pass, now I know it falls with gravity at slower speeds I would be better equipped to deal with.
Back to this thread I personally feel the chute although 10 year + technology now is still not understood or accepted as a viable and very worthwhile bit of kit on a GA aircraft and tars the pilots who are positive about it as in some incompetent or lacking training etc.
With the massive success of Cirrus compared to any other make on the planet
you would assume other manufacturers would wish to take this existing & proven technology on board to compete by making it a standard?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would make most aircraft designs impossible due to weight constraints.
And you are right there is a general attitude that cirrus pilots are talent limited. And flying for 10mins and 10 plus miles from 9k to try and reach some tarmac doesn't help matters.
Plus most of us can't and wouldn't pay for a chute.
And you are right there is a general attitude that cirrus pilots are talent limited. And flying for 10mins and 10 plus miles from 9k to try and reach some tarmac doesn't help matters.
Plus most of us can't and wouldn't pay for a chute.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you are right there is a general attitude that cirrus pilots are talent limited
And flying for 10mins and 10 plus miles from 9k to try and reach some tarmac doesn't help matters
To be clear, I am not a Cirrus man, I only have a few hours on the airplane. It's not my personal favourite for a number of reasons. Also MJ don't take this as a personal dig at you, it's directed at the overall negative forum attitude to Cirrus.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite some of the drivel I think it is a worthwhile topic for discussion because there are plenty of Cirrus Drivers out there who could benefit from being a member of COPA and specific training on why and when to use the Chute, so if nothing else these threads may be thought provoking and lead some of them to seek out more information.
In very broad round numbers I believe around half of Cirrus owners belong to COPA yet 75% of fatal accidents in Cirrus are non COPA members. (It is something like this but I will update if to far out)
Maybe a COPA member who is prepared to spend the measly $75.00 is a more likely person to go on additional safety training, and maybe COPA members read all the accident reports and learn from them, I do not know the reason's but this is roughly as it is.
Also another point as this thread is likely coming to an end, There have been in Total 96 Fatal's and 36 CAPS pulls that saved lives, with more training and focus on when to use the Chute I wish those numbers were reversed....
The Chute so far has had 100% success when used within designed criteria.
In very broad round numbers I believe around half of Cirrus owners belong to COPA yet 75% of fatal accidents in Cirrus are non COPA members. (It is something like this but I will update if to far out)
Maybe a COPA member who is prepared to spend the measly $75.00 is a more likely person to go on additional safety training, and maybe COPA members read all the accident reports and learn from them, I do not know the reason's but this is roughly as it is.
Also another point as this thread is likely coming to an end, There have been in Total 96 Fatal's and 36 CAPS pulls that saved lives, with more training and focus on when to use the Chute I wish those numbers were reversed....
The Chute so far has had 100% success when used within designed criteria.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007H
I wonder if half the reason for all the attention this aircraft gets is because it is the first to have a chute as standard.
having that chute brings in a different mentality to flying and different option potentials.
Even the fact that with conventional aircraft engine failure you are going down! Whether you are successful will depend on your skills and the landing sites open to you.
The Cirrus pilot can forget all that and just pull the chute.
I think if the chute was used as one strapped to your back ie bail out when the aircraft becomes critical then there might not be this level of discussion but fitted to the aircraft challenges conventional methods and teaching so it is bound to generate discussion?
Pilots are pilots and I do not believe that Cirrus pilots are substandard although I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft.
I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent.
I do think the chute is the way ahead and would love to see other manufacturers following suit and offering aircraft with built in and tested chute systems.
Cirrus gets attention because it is the first and there is still debate over when the chute should be used.
It is always a worry flying single pilot that should anything happen to that pilot or the aircraft that the precious cargo of a family on board stand no chance! But with the chute properly trained in its execution they do!
The 172 had the best safety record! I wonder what a chuted 172 would be like compared? Of course if one could be fitted as standard!
Pace
I wonder if half the reason for all the attention this aircraft gets is because it is the first to have a chute as standard.
having that chute brings in a different mentality to flying and different option potentials.
Even the fact that with conventional aircraft engine failure you are going down! Whether you are successful will depend on your skills and the landing sites open to you.
The Cirrus pilot can forget all that and just pull the chute.
I think if the chute was used as one strapped to your back ie bail out when the aircraft becomes critical then there might not be this level of discussion but fitted to the aircraft challenges conventional methods and teaching so it is bound to generate discussion?
Pilots are pilots and I do not believe that Cirrus pilots are substandard although I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft.
I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent.
I do think the chute is the way ahead and would love to see other manufacturers following suit and offering aircraft with built in and tested chute systems.
Cirrus gets attention because it is the first and there is still debate over when the chute should be used.
It is always a worry flying single pilot that should anything happen to that pilot or the aircraft that the precious cargo of a family on board stand no chance! But with the chute properly trained in its execution they do!
The 172 had the best safety record! I wonder what a chuted 172 would be like compared? Of course if one could be fitted as standard!
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very fair post pace which I agree with.
Its not just us knobs on BB's there is a fair amount of "talent limited" so need a chute to save there arses, outside forums.
I reallly would never put myself over a bit of woods if I could help it and noway would I be over them with 10 plus miles to play with and 10 mins. If they had pulled over a green bit after decideding at 1000 ft it was ****e I wouldn' t have an issue.
I think 007 though has although not meaning to has made a point about the mentality of some pilots.
There are some that treat the chute as a bonus and there are others that see it as a get out of jail free card that means the don't have to do normal "airmanship" The ones that see it as a bonus join the additional optional training/idea storming forums and then see to have a very healthy outlook and the others which are the ones that give the rest a bad name end up as a darwin satistic.
Its not just us knobs on BB's there is a fair amount of "talent limited" so need a chute to save there arses, outside forums.
I reallly would never put myself over a bit of woods if I could help it and noway would I be over them with 10 plus miles to play with and 10 mins. If they had pulled over a green bit after decideding at 1000 ft it was ****e I wouldn' t have an issue.
I think 007 though has although not meaning to has made a point about the mentality of some pilots.
There are some that treat the chute as a bonus and there are others that see it as a get out of jail free card that means the don't have to do normal "airmanship" The ones that see it as a bonus join the additional optional training/idea storming forums and then see to have a very healthy outlook and the others which are the ones that give the rest a bad name end up as a darwin satistic.
A note of personal history - the UK was the first country to have formal approval rules for installation of ballistic parachutes. I led drafting of them about 1997 and a very interesting task it was too.
I've since flown a number of BRS equipped aeroplanes, including using BRS as our primary "get out of gaol card" during the first spinning of two aeroplane types. (Although somehow I've so-far failed to ever get my backside in a Cirrus).
Cirrus is unique however, in that the philosophy that I/we envisaged was that
(a) the primary consideration of the parachute was that it was not to endanger the aeroplane
(b) the aeroplane still had to meet all of the safety requirements any other aeroplane would.
The Cirrus is so far as I know unique in that the parachute is actually certified to work (as opposed to not do any damage if you don't touch it), but also that the aeroplane was allowed during certification to be more relaxed in some ways than another aeroplane is.
So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.
And this has to change the mindset of a pilot flying a Cirrus, compared to one flying, say, a C172. You would not try and recover it from a spin, you'd pull the handle.
However, then we come to the difficult bit, there is so far as I know absolutely no difference between how a C172 should be able to handle an engine failure, and how a Cirrus should. Both should be fully controllable to land in a field.
However, taking a step sideways and backwrds - the first military aeroplanes were not equipped with parachutes. As compact parachutes were developed and made reliable, they became very controversial and through most of WW1 most military aeroplanes did not carry them as they were considered to encourage bad thinking.
I wasn't around, but I'll bet that there were similar controversies when the ejector seat came along.
And so we have it on the Cirrus for good reason. Some pilots (I'm sure not all) are taking the view that it gives them an alternative option and either permits them to avoid trying to fly a forced landing, or to take the aeroplane places where one just wouldn't be possible. It's a rational decision, albeit one that most of us older old and less bold pilots (even if we have got a reasonable amount of ejector seat time) tend to disagree with. Ultimately it is a legitimate point of view however, because the parachute system in the Cirrus does work, just as flying low level in a Jaguar was rational, for exactly the same reasons.
The first air accident investigation that I ever worked on was a Hawk, the aeroplane was written off, both pilots ejected and survived with only minor injuries (save possibly to their careers). I had the interesting pleasure of phoning BAe to tell them we'd written off one of their babies - the initial response from the man I spoke to remains with me to this day:-
"Kit is only kit, so long as nobody was killed, we can build another one".
G
I've since flown a number of BRS equipped aeroplanes, including using BRS as our primary "get out of gaol card" during the first spinning of two aeroplane types. (Although somehow I've so-far failed to ever get my backside in a Cirrus).
Cirrus is unique however, in that the philosophy that I/we envisaged was that
(a) the primary consideration of the parachute was that it was not to endanger the aeroplane
(b) the aeroplane still had to meet all of the safety requirements any other aeroplane would.
The Cirrus is so far as I know unique in that the parachute is actually certified to work (as opposed to not do any damage if you don't touch it), but also that the aeroplane was allowed during certification to be more relaxed in some ways than another aeroplane is.
So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.
And this has to change the mindset of a pilot flying a Cirrus, compared to one flying, say, a C172. You would not try and recover it from a spin, you'd pull the handle.
However, then we come to the difficult bit, there is so far as I know absolutely no difference between how a C172 should be able to handle an engine failure, and how a Cirrus should. Both should be fully controllable to land in a field.
However, taking a step sideways and backwrds - the first military aeroplanes were not equipped with parachutes. As compact parachutes were developed and made reliable, they became very controversial and through most of WW1 most military aeroplanes did not carry them as they were considered to encourage bad thinking.
I wasn't around, but I'll bet that there were similar controversies when the ejector seat came along.
And so we have it on the Cirrus for good reason. Some pilots (I'm sure not all) are taking the view that it gives them an alternative option and either permits them to avoid trying to fly a forced landing, or to take the aeroplane places where one just wouldn't be possible. It's a rational decision, albeit one that most of us older old and less bold pilots (even if we have got a reasonable amount of ejector seat time) tend to disagree with. Ultimately it is a legitimate point of view however, because the parachute system in the Cirrus does work, just as flying low level in a Jaguar was rational, for exactly the same reasons.
The first air accident investigation that I ever worked on was a Hawk, the aeroplane was written off, both pilots ejected and survived with only minor injuries (save possibly to their careers). I had the interesting pleasure of phoning BAe to tell them we'd written off one of their babies - the initial response from the man I spoke to remains with me to this day:-
"Kit is only kit, so long as nobody was killed, we can build another one".
G
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G and the engineering types
No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?
421C you make a valid point re spin recovery yet that does not mean that those aircraft including twins will not recover from a spin!
The fact is that pilots are no longer trained for spin recovery or for other recovery situations so maybe we need more pilot assist methods to compensate for partially trained pilots ???
Pace
No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?
421C you make a valid point re spin recovery yet that does not mean that those aircraft including twins will not recover from a spin!
The fact is that pilots are no longer trained for spin recovery or for other recovery situations so maybe we need more pilot assist methods to compensate for partially trained pilots ???
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Jul 2012 at 21:56.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do believe the chute will lure them into flying in conditions or situations they maybe wary of in conventional aircraft.
On the other hand, why shouldn't the CAPS be used to extend the range of conditions someone is comfortable flying in? You could make the same criticism of multi-engine airplanes. I fly a twin to be more comforable in conditions I'd be wary of in a single. To some extent, the CAPS offers a degree of comparable risk mitigation. I have an instrument rating so I can fly in conditions I'd be wary of if I didn't. So if I'd be wary, say, of flying over terrain at night in a single without CAPS, why shouldn't I fly a Cirrus in these conditions if I judge the extra risk mitigation sufficient?
I also believe that reliance on systems rather than keeping current on flying the aircraft will make a pilot lazy and complacent.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
You make very valid points but there is a slight area of concern.
As an IR pilot you are very good at what you do and well up to flying a twin in difficult weather/ circumstances ie you are not relying on the aircraft to compensate for a lack of experience or holes in your abilities.
We should all fly within our and the aircrafts limits! Caution dictates that in most circumstances we will!!
My judgment on the chute is purely based on how I personally would feel flying a Cirrus compared to say a 172.
I would undertake night flights in the Cirrus as a multi pilot I would be more cautious in the 172!
I would also probably push my luck in bad weather or fly over fog banks in the Cirrus hence while I may not fly out of my limits I would probably fly out of the aircraft limits more in a Cirrus than the 172.
It is just human nature! Feel safer and you will fly unsafer!!!
Pace
You make very valid points but there is a slight area of concern.
As an IR pilot you are very good at what you do and well up to flying a twin in difficult weather/ circumstances ie you are not relying on the aircraft to compensate for a lack of experience or holes in your abilities.
We should all fly within our and the aircrafts limits! Caution dictates that in most circumstances we will!!
My judgment on the chute is purely based on how I personally would feel flying a Cirrus compared to say a 172.
I would undertake night flights in the Cirrus as a multi pilot I would be more cautious in the 172!
I would also probably push my luck in bad weather or fly over fog banks in the Cirrus hence while I may not fly out of my limits I would probably fly out of the aircraft limits more in a Cirrus than the 172.
It is just human nature! Feel safer and you will fly unsafer!!!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Jul 2012 at 22:08.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that pilots are no longer trained for spin recovery or for other recovery situations so maybe we need more pilot assist methods to compensate for partially trained pilots ???
The logic is so obvious. Look at Gehghis comment on BRS. When an airplane is being flight tested, a BRS is fitted to assist recovery from difficult situations like spins. Does this mean test pilots are partially trainined? No. It means a pilot assist device is generally a good thing to mitigate risks.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that point I disagree if pilots are not trained in spin recovery or out of the box aircraft handling they are partially trained!
Take the tragic PC12 crash???
As an ex racing driver I know only too well about driving a car out of the box.
Without that ability you could never drive fast.
Because the training caused more accidents is not an argument to stop pilots being fully trained but a fault in the aircraft used or the capabilities of the instructors.
IE A pilot who goes off and does 5 hrs aerobatic training in an aerobatic certificate aircraft with a properly rated instructor will be a more capable pilot than if he never did such training?
Or are you saying he will be just as capable without that out of the box training?
It is all very well training pilots to recovery to incipient this or incipient that until the day the aircraft goes beyond incipient and then where does that leave him? In uncharted territory and in the arms of the Gods?
Then sadly you get tragic accidents like the recent PC12 crash.
Pace
Take the tragic PC12 crash???
As an ex racing driver I know only too well about driving a car out of the box.
Without that ability you could never drive fast.
Because the training caused more accidents is not an argument to stop pilots being fully trained but a fault in the aircraft used or the capabilities of the instructors.
IE A pilot who goes off and does 5 hrs aerobatic training in an aerobatic certificate aircraft with a properly rated instructor will be a more capable pilot than if he never did such training?
Or are you saying he will be just as capable without that out of the box training?
It is all very well training pilots to recovery to incipient this or incipient that until the day the aircraft goes beyond incipient and then where does that leave him? In uncharted territory and in the arms of the Gods?
Then sadly you get tragic accidents like the recent PC12 crash.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Jul 2012 at 22:47.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an IR pilot you are very good at what you do and well up to flying a twin in difficult weather/ circumstances ie you are not relying on the aircraft to compensate for a lack of experience or holes in your abilities
Why is this very critical? The Cirrus is a high performance airplane. Is a Mooney or Malibu or Bonanza certified for spin recovery? No light twin I've ever flown is certified as able to recover from a spin. So the Cirrus is no different from most high performance light aircraft, except it has the benefit of the CAPS as an additional option in the event of a spin.
And yes, the Mooney, Malibu and Bonanza are certified for spin recovery - they just aren't certified for deliberate spinning. They still have to be able to recover should you get into one.
It's true that most twins are not certified for spin recovery, but there are a raft of other extra safety requirements that they have to meet. Standard have to be appropriate to the design at the end of the day.
G
G and the engineering types
No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?
Pace
No other major manufacturers have yet followed suit and offered the chute as standard fit in their machines.
Obviously there are aircraft which would suit such a fit while others would be more problematic or even impossible.
I presume low wing composites would be better candidates for a standard chute fitment than say the all metal high wing 172?
Do other manufacturers have plans to release their own version of chuted aircraft?
Pace
Cirrus have made it mandatory on their aeroplane, but actually quite a lot of smaller manufacturers have had it as an optional mod for quite a few years.
Of course, if the CAPS/BRS is optional, it doesn't give any alleviation from any other airworthiness requirements.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus have made it mandatory on their aeroplane, but actually quite a lot of smaller manufacturers have had it as an optional mod for quite a few years.
With the amount of deployments in testing and in real world situations the manufacturers must be getting more and more reassured that their system works time and time again with regular reliability.
So much so that many (not the manufacturer) are recommending the chute as a standard procedure for engine failure or in fact any situation where the pilot feels unable to cope?
That is a bit different to some microlight manufacturer offering a strap on ballistic chute which may not be quite as reliable.
My question is why Cessna do not build this into the Columbia which would increase their sales or even into the 172 which has the best safety record chute or no chute??
Do they have plans to do so as purely from a marketing public perception angle the chute must be a big sales motivator!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Jul 2012 at 23:03.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IE A pilot who goes off and does 5 hrs aerobatic training in an aerobatic certificate aircraft with a properly rated instructor will be a more capable pilot than if he never did such training?
On the PC12 tragedy, we haven't seen a report yet, but I doubt 5hrs in a Bulldog or some light aerobatic single would have made the slightest difference. Scott Crossfield was tragically killed in his light single in a thunderstorm, and I imagine he had more extreme aeros and performance experience in a lifetime of flight testing and flying rocket ships than most pilots out there....
I absolutely agree Pace that a certified BRS system changes the picture.
But, having had significant sight of the installation of those systems, I'd say that the microlight manufacturers have also been very rigorous in those installations, albeit not quite to the level of the certified system on the Cirrus.
It's entirely reasonable that we see more of these, and that they change the way we see some flight safety and operational issues. But, you shouldn't underestimate the huge cost of reaching the level of certification that Cirrus have. They may not have had the cost of spin testing, but they hardly got off cost free.
G
But, having had significant sight of the installation of those systems, I'd say that the microlight manufacturers have also been very rigorous in those installations, albeit not quite to the level of the certified system on the Cirrus.
It's entirely reasonable that we see more of these, and that they change the way we see some flight safety and operational issues. But, you shouldn't underestimate the huge cost of reaching the level of certification that Cirrus have. They may not have had the cost of spin testing, but they hardly got off cost free.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reallly would never put myself over a bit of woods if I could help it and noway would I be over them with 10 plus miles to play with and 10 mins
You wouldnt in a single, because you dont.
But actually the chances of an engine failure are miniscule. They are even more miniscule over that particular wood. Sure you still might not like those stats but with a chute, you might. The risk is already tiny, and the chute gives a better than 90% chance of a successful outcome should the worst happen, so whats so wrong using the chute to enlarge your envelope of what you would do in a sep?
I am really not all all keen flying a sep at night or over a rough sea these days. Id fly a cirrus, and if the engine quit, id use the chute. That level of risk sits comfortably for me and i dont think id feel any more comfortable in a twin.