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

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wonder how much this debate is flavoured by various pilots practice in emergencies?

Jock and I often seem to be on the same side in debates like this, and I wonder how much this is flavoured by the currency we try to maintain?

I was raised at my mother's knee (well, an RAF flying instructor or 6 anyhow) who brought me up to believe firmly that regularly practicing emergencies is an essential part of your personal life insurance.

So, most months I will take the time to do a PFL or two, a stall or two, and usually something else - maybe a flapless approach or a simulated fire. And so, whilst I won't claim I'm perfect, I'm reasonably confident of my ability to handle most stuff going wrong with reasonable competence.

But, particularly since I've become an instructor, I've become very aware that many PPLs do not practice PFLs, or any other potential emergency, from one year to the next. This perhaps explains why given the option of a parachute many PPLs choose to plan for the "CAPS option" in preference to many other things that they have been trained to do, but never practiced since.

G

[peterh337]

I wonder how many Cirruses where the chute wasn't pulled but the aircraft was in fully flying condition (e.g. "just" an engine failure) ended up injuring or killing occupants as a result of a forced landing which was attempted to an apparently suitable site but which for some reason didn't work out.

My recollection of no-chute-pulled crashes is that most were not survivable.

I also wonder if the aircraft tends to catch fire easily. There is a video out there from a security camera, showing an SR20/22 crashing into a car park, at a fair old flying speed, and exploding into a huge fireball literally the instant it hits the ground.

[paulp]

The only burn death in a Cirrus was a case where the pilot's seatbelt jammed. The copilot got out.

There is at least one case where the pilot had an engine failure at altitude and died during the off airport landing. A partner in the plane said the pilot was dismissive of the chute and had stated he believed an off airport landing would be a better choice.

[Fuji Abound]

Genghid exactly my point for a number of posts now.

Its all very well those preaching how well they would do in a forced landing all i can add is i have pulled the leaver on enough pilots to add that i agree with you many will not do a good job however much they may think otherwise.

Put me in an aircraft with a pilot drawn randomnly and i would far rather they pull the chute that demonstrate their forced landing skills.

With apologies thats the way i see it and i suspect just as you if you ask most instructors they would agree with you.

[Pace]

Fuji

But I thought all the Cirrus pilots were highly trained and far advanced over pilots from 30 years ago?

Other than stall spin accidents in a forced landing which are avoidable what are the statistics for serious injury/death in a forced landing?

What is the CIRRUS view on this because it does not recommend using the chute unless a suitable landing area cannot be found for a forced landing.
You would be going against PPL training as well as the manufacturers recommendation so it might be wise to get the CAA blessing as well as CIRRUS?
I am being serious with this as you may be right but if you are you still need the CAA and Cirrus on board for what is a controversial new way

Pace

[007helicopter]

Put me in an aircraft with a pilot drawn randomnly and i would far rather they pull the chute that demonstrate their forced landing skills.

Fuji for me put me in a Cirrus with an instructors or professional Pilot and I would rather they pull the Chute than demonstrate their forced landing skills, they may well have a better chance than your average guy but there would in my opinion be plenty who did not make a very good job of it.

[007helicopter]

But I thought all the Cirrus pilots were highly trained and far advanced over pilots from 30 years ago?

Pace old chap that is nonsense and you know it, nobody is trying to make that suggestion, there are plenty of poorly or inadequately trained Cirrus Pilots just like any other GA type.

Other than stall spin accidents in a forced landing which are avoidable what are the statistics for serious injury/death in a forced landing?

I am not sure, it is also hard to come up with a statistic as I accept a successful forced landing is not, or I do not think an incident that needs reporting. So is a non event from a reporting point of view.

Forced landings and CAPS for engine failure or fuel exhaustion are fairly rare, most deaths are still CFIT, VFR into IMC and handling on aproach / landing. All Pilot error.

The risk of dying in a Cirrus (and I assume most GA aircraft) due to mechanical failure is small.

I am being serious with this as you may be right but if you are you still need the CAA and Cirrus on board for what is a controversial new way

I am serious, why do I as PIC need to get any one on board, CAA or Cirrus or anyone?

I have made my own mind up of my strategy. Each PIC with the tools available can decide from their training, knowledge and skill what is in their opinion their best chance of survival and when and when not to use the chute.

As you said the only area most of us disagree strongly in is the choice of a forced landing off airport or the use as a general preference of the Chute in this situation.

[Pace]

007H

Because there are training procedures for engine failure and forced landings which are part of the PPL and inground as a SOP by the CAA.
This would go against all we are taught so would need an approval by the CAA who would have to satisfy themselves that there is a safety case in using the chute as a SOP!

They in turn would consult with the manufacturers for their opinion.
Their opinion does not follow your own and as such to make up your own procedures could cause insurance problems.

Ie worst case scenario flying over a large tarmac runway you have an engine failure and pull the chute.
The insurance company would be in their rights to question paying out over a home made non approved procedure

Pace

[mad_jock]

I have made my own mind up of my strategy. Each PIC with the tools available can decide from their training, knowledge and skill what is in their opinion their best chance of survival

That really isn't the case I am afraid. If you encounter an event that isn't defined you can make it up on the hoof otherwise you are leaving your backside wide open.

I know this isn't normally a Private pilot concern but there have been quite a few cases where Pro pilots have stepped outside the normal abnormal procedures and then been taken to task afterwards and also there estates have been sued post event.

There is currently huge court cases with AF477 with the company manufacturer and pilots estates all involved.

[007helicopter]

This perhaps explains why given the option of a parachute many PPLs choose to plan for the "CAPS option" in preference to many other things that they have been trained to do, but never practiced since.

Genghis I agree with your point, other than many PPL's who fly Cirrus have had virtually zero training on using the chute, never practiced it in a sim, pretty much forget about it day by day flying.

When the crunch comes and they need it they are totally unprepared and have no strategy and die with a perfectly good chute on board.


So I think the general training of Cirrus Pilots has fallen well short and maybe reflects something like a string of 13 fatal's and in the same period only 2 CAPS pulls, this specific one being one of them.

[Rod1]

There was some work done on engine failures in the UK from around 2000 which came out at around;

50% no significant damage, no injury

25% Significant damage minor injury

25% Significant damage, serious injury / death

I strongly suspect that a busy guy with a Cirrus would rather rely on the tec than “waste” time practising PFL’s etc every month.

Rod1

[mad_jock]

As a open question 007 what do you think should be the minimum training and should there be recurrent type training?

It almost sounds like you need a type rating for this machine.

You seem to need a far greater depth of system knowledge and procedures than your normal sod it read the POH kick the tyres light the fire SEP.

[Fuji Abound]

Now Pace we have been through this. Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk. Whatever the rights or wrongs, no regulatory authority or insurance company is going to challenge the commanders assessment of whether or not he considered there was little or no risk. For my own interest, I have started a trawl through the AAIB reports; it is interesting the number of forced landing that do involve injury. If I find time I might post my findings. There is an interesting report I was reading only just now. Unfortunately the pilot and his apssenger were seriously injured. In the interview he was frank. He was asked the last time he had practiced a PFL; it was during his last flight review over eighteen months previous. Of how many pilots is that true? In fact how many pilots aren't asked to demonstrate a PFL during their review? I know of a few. Its all very well your highlighting what pilots SHOULD do but as I have said before we live in a real world, in which pilots DON'T regularly practice PFLs, in fact they probably don't practice them at all.

Not withstanding as you well know the PPL is designed to cover the "basic" elements of pilot training. It considers the use of a chute no more than the use of a personal parachute. The CAA are happy I fly aeros in the UK without a chute, whereas in France it would be illegal for me to do so, and I could be prosecuted or the insurance company could refuse to pay out, if I had an accident while flying aeros without a chute.

I did come across another interesting statistic. If just half the pilots involved in fatal Cirrus accidents in circumstances where they could have used the chute and did not, had deployed the chute, then the Cirrus fatality record would be significantly less than the rest of the GA fleet (in fact by over half). Of course that assumes the chute changed the outcome, but I suspect that is a safe bet in the majority of cases.

Again while I enjoy the debate I would put it to you that your dis-service is as great but sowing seeds that a pilot should be reluctant to use the chute on the basis that he SHOULD be able to carry out a successful forced landing. I would argue (albeit based entirely on my own perception) that most pilots would be better off pulling the chute rather than ever considering a conventional forced landing if their sole priority was to minimise personal injury. How often when an instructor does some PFLs does the chat go as follow;

First PFL - 500 feet, so are we going to make the field or go through the hedge?

Pilot; hmm, its not looking good is it?

Instructor - how about another go.

Instructor - third time lucky, then.

Trouble is when it happens for real you only get one chance, and there is no instructor to suggest your choice of field, glide angle etc might not be a good one.

I think the outcome of many forced landing is OK because it seems to me aircraft are surprisingly good at going through hedges, walls, roofs, etc and more often than not flipping over. Unfortunately that means the outcome can be a bit of a lottery and even a "good" landing in a field can result in an inverted aircraft with the problems than can ensue.

[Pace]

Fuji you and 007H may be totally correct as I have said this is new ground and goes against conventional thinking and pilot training!
That does not mean you or 007H are wrong as your arguments are convincing!
But regardless without support from
The manufacturer and the CAA we are left in uncharted waters!
The Cirrus SOP should read " in event of engine failure we recommend in most circumstances that the chute is deployed! Only if the pilot is over a secure landing site and very confident of his abilities should a forced landing be contemplated. In
Most circumstances Cirrus recommend an immediate deployment of the chute regarding engine failure ".
Surely you must see that it is not me you need to convince but the CAA and Cirrus who have better access to relevant statistics.
It is very raw of you to accuse me of encouraging pilots not to use the chute when all inam
Doing is stating the CAA and Cirrus position !
Btw you are convincing me slowly : )

[mad_jock]

G I agree that currency is a big factor.

Also linked into this is the number of times you have done said procedures.

While working as an instructor everything gets hard wired so to speak because your doing them 10 times a week. So even if I haven't flown a SEP in a year and get a PFL or stalling there isn't much thinking happens and it also doesn't matter if it on the blind side either. Most PFL's demonstrated were always LH circuits so most of the time I never saw the landing point anyway after choosing until we rolled out.

The whole thing I believe with forced landings is the way they are taught. If they have always been knocked off at 500ft your going to have problems. If your instructor was getting you to below fence level you are far far more prepared for the unlikely event. Yes from the instructor point of view there is more risk of the engine farting when you want to go around but...... The students are trained properly.


Its the same with the twin stuff these days. My last LPC the examinor failed the inside engine in a 30 degree climbing V2+10 turn. After I sorted it out I did mention he was a brave bastard to do that in the aircraft and it should maybe be left to the sim. But the rudder was in and nose lowered before I had even realised that the engine was being failed. He laughed and said don't worry I won't do it with an FO.

Did make me think though about some of the noise abatement V2+10 departure procedures if some of them shouldn't be Captain only departures.

And G I would reword that post it could be interpreted as you had lots of "uncles" as a kid.

[englishal]

There was some work done on engine failures in the UK from around 2000 which came out at around;

50% no significant damage, no injury

25% Significant damage minor injury

25% Significant damage, serious injury / death

I strongly suspect that a busy guy with a Cirrus would rather rely on the tec than “waste” time practising PFL’s etc every month.

Interestingly the Fatality figure in the USA is 17%.

And that brings me to point 2, in general, UK flight instruction is rubbish. Training in the USA seems much more tailored to what you want to fly and how to use the kit. I bet, for example, someone who buys a new cirrus, does their PPL in THAT cirrus with a FI who specialises in training IN the Cirrus, then does the Cirrus FITS course, and knows what every knob an button does is a far better Cirrus pilot than even a UK FI who has been asked to "convert" someone to the Cirrus. They might not be that great a Tomahawk pilot though, but that doesn't matter as they will never ever fly such a piece of rubbish in their life.

Try finding a FI in the UK who can teach you to fly GPS approaches with your 430W? Well I did actually, but the FI is a US CFII.......In fact, while I am on a rant, try finding a FI who has a valid IR in the UK. Ok, if they have come straight from Oxford, but ask them 13 monts later if it is still valid.

People who keep arguing about the parachute do so because they don't understand it. It is white-mans-magic to them, not how they were taught...oooohhh noooo mrs, I would never take to the lifeboat in the event of the ship sinking. I would....

If the factory says...If you use the parachute higher than X altitude, less than X knots, then there is a 2% chance you're going to kill yourself, and your engine fails above X and you are below X speed and you know there is a 17% chance you will die carrying out a forced landing.....hmmm, pull the red knob, no question, unless you are ASSURED landing.

[Pace]

Rod

The 25% serious damage injury or death figure!
Do we know a breakdown oh those FLs ?
My guess is a large percentage will
Be stall spin?
That comes back to training as there is NO reason for an aircraft to stall other than incorrect pilot handling or training!
The idea that you are better landing into something unfriendly rather than crashing from a stall spin!
I would like to know the stats where serious injury or death are a result of a successful forced landing under control into unsuitable or an insufficient landing site?
I bet that potion is not great ?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk.

in event of engine failure we recommend in most circumstances that the chute is deployed! Only if the pilot is over a secure landing site and very confident of his abilities should a forced landing be contemplated.

There is very little difference between the first statement and your second line. In other words for the pilot to believe he can make a forced landing with little or no risk he needs to be confident in his ability and happy the site is good. If not, Cirrus are saying consider using the chute. I see nothing ambiguous, likely to confuse the CAA or the insurers.

Your first line adds dangerous ambiguity by including the phrase "in most circumstances". The circumstances have been made clear. If the pilot considers there is more than a little risk associated with a conventional forced landing, use the chute. He might consider this to be the case for all sorts of reasons including his skills not being up to scratch given the weather and conditions or because he considers the available sites are unsuitable.

As I commented earlier the USA is so litigious that you would not give an edict unless you could guarantee the outcome; you cant and no one has suggested otherwise.

10 instructors current and up to speed could make perfectly good forced landings and in most circumstances their decision would be the correct decision, and 10 long in the tooth PPLs who have also long given up practicing forced landings could find it goes badly wrong in 50% of the cases and so in most circumstances they would be right to reach for the chute.

The simple truth as I suspect you know is the lawyers will have laboured carefully over this one, and concluded this is the correct balance between laying themselves open for a writ and over gilding the lily. I think they have got it about right.

[Rod1]

If the UK rate is 25% for serious injury or death, then saying that a US rate of 17% death is better is a bit of a stretch. I had the option of putting a BRS in my aircraft, I researched it and decided against. The weight of the BRS will have caused some fatal accidents due to reduced performance.

Rod1

[Rod1]

Pace,

I agree with your logic. The stats were from an article I found around 2000. The conclusion split was the bit I kept in my head and it is why I practice PFL’s regularly. I find it hard to understand why a pilot in current practice would have an issue unless he was very unlucky. Glider pilots land out all the time and the death rate is very very low.

Rod1