Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very suprised if 25% of forced landings that follow an engine failure result in a serious injury (which I gather is a broken leg or worse) or death.
If I really have a 25% chance of doing myself in when faced with the "99% scenario" (fields more or less everywhere) then I ought to take up knitting.
If I really have a 25% chance of doing myself in when faced with the "99% scenario" (fields more or less everywhere) then I ought to take up knitting.
Last edited by peterh337; 30th Jul 2012 at 12:12.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFL's in essence are easy. You just glide to the ground and land.
The hard bit is deciding where to land, especially with limited landing spots, and also recognising when you have to glide to the ground (i.e. you engine has stopped and immediate action is requred).
When I had the Rallye, landing spots were never an issue as you could land that plane on a 6 pence if you had to. I also imagine that VLA's are easier to force land as give them a 20 kt head wind and they blow away. A cirrus (and other heavier types) on the other hand is heavier and faster and so landing spots are more limited and there will be more kinetic energy when landing. More kinetic energy = more chance of damage if it goes wrong, so you'd also have to factor that into your "do i pull the chute" equation.
The hard bit is deciding where to land, especially with limited landing spots, and also recognising when you have to glide to the ground (i.e. you engine has stopped and immediate action is requred).
When I had the Rallye, landing spots were never an issue as you could land that plane on a 6 pence if you had to. I also imagine that VLA's are easier to force land as give them a 20 kt head wind and they blow away. A cirrus (and other heavier types) on the other hand is heavier and faster and so landing spots are more limited and there will be more kinetic energy when landing. More kinetic energy = more chance of damage if it goes wrong, so you'd also have to factor that into your "do i pull the chute" equation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
There is a massive difference between Cirrus recommending a conventional forced landing as a SOP and what 007H and you are suggesting which is that the SOP should be use of the Chute as standard with a forced landing only if the pilot is confident and the landing site perfect!
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?
Pace
There is a massive difference between Cirrus recommending a conventional forced landing as a SOP and what 007H and you are suggesting which is that the SOP should be use of the Chute as standard with a forced landing only if the pilot is confident and the landing site perfect!
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You cant keep putting words into their mouth as much as you might wish.
I have posted what Cirrus have to say. I think its clear and I am happy with it.
If you, I, or anyone else feels confident they can make a forced landing with little or no risk then don't pull the chute. If you don't think you can, consider the chute. In fact since physics rather dictates you have only two choices I guess the word consider is pretty pointless but I guess the lawyers might think otherwise. 
However I think we are going around in circles again.
Fact is there have been over 40 pulls for various reasons no complaints from the CAA, the FAA and no refused insurance payments of which I am aware. I am not aware of any successful claims against Cirrus either so I guess those that matter are happy with where we are.
You cant keep putting words into their mouth as much as you might wish.
I have posted what Cirrus have to say. I think its clear and I am happy with it.
Cirrus say you should consider using the chute if a forced landing can be secured with LITTLE or NO risk.
However I think we are going around in circles again.
Fact is there have been over 40 pulls for various reasons no complaints from the CAA, the FAA and no refused insurance payments of which I am aware. I am not aware of any successful claims against Cirrus either so I guess those that matter are happy with where we are.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Can you or someone post the recommended Cirrus procedure for a forced Landing with engine failure as I am on my I phone posting.
In its entirety please as your snippet was not what someone posted before in the thread or previous thread?
I am sure if the evidence was so overwhelming on liability grounds they would recommend the chute for engine failure .
Pace
Can you or someone post the recommended Cirrus procedure for a forced Landing with engine failure as I am on my I phone posting.
In its entirety please as your snippet was not what someone posted before in the thread or previous thread?
I am sure if the evidence was so overwhelming on liability grounds they would recommend the chute for engine failure .
Pace
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an interesting lawsuit after a Cirrus accident. Fuel starvation was the result of improper maintenance. The controversial part is that the pilot's estate is being sued because he did NOT use the chute.
As far as guidance, the POH says:
You can find the complete POH here.
As far as guidance, the POH says:
Engine Failure In Flight
If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide
speed. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify
the cause of the failure and correct it. If altitude or terrain does not
permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to
Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and
landing considerations.
If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide
speed. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify
the cause of the failure and correct it. If altitude or terrain does not
permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to
Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and
landing considerations.
You can find the complete POH here.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More from POH:
Emergency Procedures SR22
Landing Emergencies
If all attempts to restart the engine fail and a forced landing is
imminent, select a suitable field and prepare for the landing. If flight
conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment
may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS
deployment scenarios and landing considerations.
A suitable field should be chosen as early as possible so that
maximum time will be available to plan and execute the forced landing.
For forced landings on unprepared surfaces, use full flaps if possible.
Land on the main gear and hold the nose wheel off the ground as long
as possible. If engine power is available, before attempting an “off
airport” landing, fly over the landing area at a low but safe altitude to
inspect the terrain for obstructions and surface conditions.
• Note •
Use of full (100%) flaps will reduce glide distance. Full flaps
should not be selected until landing is assured.
Emergency Landing Without Engine Power
1. Best Glide Speed ........................................................ ESTABLISH
2. Radio............................................. Transmit (121.5 MHz) MAYDAY
giving location and intentions
3. Transponder ........................................................... SQUAWK 7700
4. If off airport, ELT ........................................................... ACTIVATE
5. Power Lever ............................................................ ................IDLE
6. Mixture ............................................................ ................. CUTOFF
7. Fuel Selector.................................................... ........................OFF
8. Ignition Switch ............................................................ ..............OFF
9. Fuel Pump........................................................ ........................OFF
10.Flaps (when landing is assured) ............................................100%
11.Master Switches.................................................... ...................OFF
12.Seat Belt(s) ............................................................ ....... SECURED
Landing Emergencies
If all attempts to restart the engine fail and a forced landing is
imminent, select a suitable field and prepare for the landing. If flight
conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment
may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS
deployment scenarios and landing considerations.
A suitable field should be chosen as early as possible so that
maximum time will be available to plan and execute the forced landing.
For forced landings on unprepared surfaces, use full flaps if possible.
Land on the main gear and hold the nose wheel off the ground as long
as possible. If engine power is available, before attempting an “off
airport” landing, fly over the landing area at a low but safe altitude to
inspect the terrain for obstructions and surface conditions.
• Note •
Use of full (100%) flaps will reduce glide distance. Full flaps
should not be selected until landing is assured.
Emergency Landing Without Engine Power
1. Best Glide Speed ........................................................ ESTABLISH
2. Radio............................................. Transmit (121.5 MHz) MAYDAY
giving location and intentions
3. Transponder ........................................................... SQUAWK 7700
4. If off airport, ELT ........................................................... ACTIVATE
5. Power Lever ............................................................ ................IDLE
6. Mixture ............................................................ ................. CUTOFF
7. Fuel Selector.................................................... ........................OFF
8. Ignition Switch ............................................................ ..............OFF
9. Fuel Pump........................................................ ........................OFF
10.Flaps (when landing is assured) ............................................100%
11.Master Switches.................................................... ...................OFF
12.Seat Belt(s) ............................................................ ....... SECURED
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point it might be worth noting that the attributes of the way composite structures absorb energy when loaded beond the design limits that make the Cirrus as safe as it is when the chute is pulled also come into play when the aircraft is involved in a forced landing and hits something during the landing roll.
A bit like a wooden structure except eighty years late !
A bit like a wooden structure except eighty years late !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It almost sounds like you need a type rating for this machine.
A competent Pilot in most GA types within 3-5 hours will be quite happy physically flying the plane in good VFR, although will proably have his head inside to much looking at the gizmos - getting use to speed, number's and landing profile etc is fairly straight forward, but they will struggle like hell in IMC until he is fully competent with the GNS430's and glass and I would say however good he is on steam gauge's would be a liability until some serious study and practice on the avioincs.
For me I did 5 hours flying, 5 hours ground, at the time I was fairly rusty and had not flown for 9 months. This for me in hind site was not enough and I should have done more.
It took me 30-40 hours of actual flying to begin to get comfortable with the avionics and a good chunk more before happy with approaches in genuine IMC but that is just me.
I personally think mandatory recurrent training would be good and improve safety but heck it could just piss of those who don't want it. The more regulation I assume the less Pilots will stay in the GA world.
COPA offer a really good recurrent training called CPPP (Cirrus Pilot and Profiency) it has some of the best Cirrus instructors from around the world, happens extensively around the world including 2 or 3 in Europe each year. I have done three in total and consider invaluable to advance my personal skills and knowledge.
BUT - it only preaches to the Choir.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 30th Jul 2012 at 19:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a massive difference between Cirrus recommending a conventional forced landing as a SOP and what 007H and you are suggesting which is that the SOP should be use of the Chute as standard with a forced landing only if the pilot is confident and the landing site perfect!
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?
Cirrus are quite clear recommending to glide to a suitable site for a forced landing and only if one does not exist to CONSIDER possible use of the chute .
How you think the both are almost the same ?
They are miles apart!
You maybe right but instead of attacking me get Cirrus to approve your methods?
Within COPA their are different opinions and arguments about forced landing versus chute, so it is not a COPA policy, they are just a volunteer association with no teeth but have many, many very long term seasoned pilots / instructors / professional pilots / etc who have influenced me to what is yes, I suppose an unconventional way of thinking.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a short amount of flying with a very experienced Cirrus instructor who also happened to be responsible for the training and recurrent training of a Substantial Cirrus Air taxi company that employed I think hundreds, but lets just say for this discussion Dozens of commercial pilots who would carry their passengers under FAA Part 135 Regs.
As I recall the story E&OE
So he would do a six month check on all pilots that included a PFL and dead stick landing over an airport at around 3000ft, a surprising amount did not make the runway every time, after a while they changed the policy of the test that if they did not make a decision to pull the chute by 1000ft, and if they then fell short or not accurate on the runway then they would fail the check ride and lose employment, unsurprisingly this reinforced the use of the chute very effectively.
Additionally it became SOP of this company in the event of an off airport landing the Pilot was instructed to use the Chute.
This story plus several others that over time influenced me personally to make it my own SOP
As I recall the story E&OE
So he would do a six month check on all pilots that included a PFL and dead stick landing over an airport at around 3000ft, a surprising amount did not make the runway every time, after a while they changed the policy of the test that if they did not make a decision to pull the chute by 1000ft, and if they then fell short or not accurate on the runway then they would fail the check ride and lose employment, unsurprisingly this reinforced the use of the chute very effectively.
Additionally it became SOP of this company in the event of an off airport landing the Pilot was instructed to use the Chute.
This story plus several others that over time influenced me personally to make it my own SOP
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats fair comment 007 and in a none condescending way you sound like you have well in hand and have a professional manner in attacking your flying.
Whats contained in the ground school? Full system knowlege or is it mainly based on the pushing buttons of the avionics?
I know its a hard balance, personally I enjoy recurrent training and also tech refreshers, always learn something new. Some of my collegues think this is strange but although it hasn't really saved my bacon it has made a few situations far less stressful than they might of been.
Suprised you can try and get a reduction in insurance costs for being a member of COPA and doing the courses.
Whats contained in the ground school? Full system knowlege or is it mainly based on the pushing buttons of the avionics?
I personally think mandatory recurrent training would be good and improve safety but heck it could just piss of those who don't want it. The more regulation I assume the less Pilots will stay in the GA world.
Suprised you can try and get a reduction in insurance costs for being a member of COPA and doing the courses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats contained in the ground school? Full system knowlege or is it mainly based on the pushing buttons of the avionics?
The CPPP's are great because you can choose between different areas you want to work on, avionics, weather, CDM, avionics, engine management etc plus another 5 hours practical flying on what ever skill area you choose.
Also I think some transition training offered falls well short of what is required, there are some very good Cirrus instructors who are passionate about passing on their knowledge but I have had checkouts or BFR's from some where to be frank they are lacking and I feel sorry for their actual students.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty common unfortunately.
Sounds like you have a very advanced machine which isn't being treated with the respect it requires by a fair few that are flying them.
In the commercial world we have a company check ever 6 months and a license IR every 12 months.
There are manditory items we do every check and there are others which are done on a rolling bais which in theory you should cover everything over a certain time period. For example we always do the single engine work but we might do a engine shut down one check and the next stalling.
The sim sessions which create most thought are the LOFT sessions which give you a standardish flight with some wx calls and tech issues at the beginning which eventually allow you to depart then things happen. It challenges your PIC skills and managment. Some hate it I quite enjoy it.
Sounds like you have a very advanced machine which isn't being treated with the respect it requires by a fair few that are flying them.
In the commercial world we have a company check ever 6 months and a license IR every 12 months.
There are manditory items we do every check and there are others which are done on a rolling bais which in theory you should cover everything over a certain time period. For example we always do the single engine work but we might do a engine shut down one check and the next stalling.
The sim sessions which create most thought are the LOFT sessions which give you a standardish flight with some wx calls and tech issues at the beginning which eventually allow you to depart then things happen. It challenges your PIC skills and managment. Some hate it I quite enjoy it.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the chute is unique to Cirrus, the avionics aren't any more difficult than other modern aircraft. What I do find is that with modern avionics there are many more combinations of interactions that need to be well understood. Last Saturday I spent doing approaches. While I hand flew a couple, I set up specific situations to make sure I understand how things sequence in all situations. This included editing alternate destinations in the hold, bringing up the chart for an airport inserted where it wasn't the final destination, and use of VNAV for stopping GPS descent and flying the missed (I have R9 avionics).
For all the talk about hand flying skills, as a former Garmin 430W owner, I highly recommend practicing the scenario of missed into hold with diversion to another airport with an approach at the alternate. It can get messy.
For all the talk about hand flying skills, as a former Garmin 430W owner, I highly recommend practicing the scenario of missed into hold with diversion to another airport with an approach at the alternate. It can get messy.
