Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012

[BabyBear]

All interesting views and points and I can't fault your thinking MJ.

However, given you are of the opinion that

Originally Posted by mad_jock

But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.

and you were flying a Cirrus over the Cairngorms do you think you could resist pulling the handle when you know the terrain is as you describe and you believe you are stuffed?

BB

[mad_jock]

To be honest if I was VFR I wouldn't be high enough for it to work.

IFR I would be at FL100 and be having a bloody good shot at gliding clear to either Deeside or Speyside. Mainly because if you did survive the crash the emergency services could get to you.

[Pace]

But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.

MJ

For pilots like you and maybe me we are unlikely to loose it in cloud or if we do not recover.
We probably know enough about icing not to push into icing we cannot loose with a short descent.

With an engine failure in most cases we would force land but over your lovely rugged mountains I would probably pull the chute.

I would pull the chute at night but then question whether I should be there and probably would not if the chute was not there.

The main reasons especially as you get older is the known fact that if anything happens to you your passengers well briefed have a good chance of survival.
The fact that you have a chute will probably encourage more of your chums to risk life and limb flying with you anyway
I read one successful chute pull where the pilot suffered a stroke on his own and came to long enough to pull the chute.

Should it be used as a cure all for every situation even when the aircraft is perfectly flyable??
My guess is something is wrong with training, examination, currency, ability etc!
Reading others here I have probably changed my mind and now accept that there are a bunch of not up to it pilots in the mix (as well as good ones)
If your a good one decide when and in what circumstances you will resort to the chute the rest ??? Go for the chute as a SOP as you are better alive than dead.

Pace

[mad_jock]

You see with that extra 55ltrs of fuel I would have absouletly no reason to be over the cairngorms in horrible conditions I would be up the east coast with loads of options.

[Fuji Abound]

You see with that extra 55ltrs of fuel I would have absouletly no reason to be over the cairngorms in horrible conditions I would be up the east coast with loads of options.

MJ - on a serious point that is not always possible.

For example you may want to do a trip to the CIs or any other longer sea passage. Climbing high enough to glide to land may not be possible. Yes, of course you could refuse the trip without an extra engine, but then again not everyone has that luxury. Your assessment is that an engine failure is highly unlikely. However you might well take comfort from the chute subject to your assessment of the pros and cons of a water based landing with or without the chute. Unfortunately all the extra fuel in the world is not a substitute nor whatever more advanced skills it is that the pilot may possess.

[mad_jock]

Yep but look at the accident statistics and see where the real fatal dangers lies.

CI by far the most likely screwing up with your plans is that the viz will drop. This morning RVR was down to 50m I believe. That extra 55ltrs will get you way way past the coast and into France or back to the UK. Or you could use it to reduce your exposure to risk by taking a shorter crossing and running down the French coast. Which with the speed of the cirrus won't actually add that much extra sector time on if your coming from east of SOU.

However you might well take comfort from the chute

Well that pretty much is the only thing it will give most people. Compared to having an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard and the amount of risk that it reduces by having it.

Go to AAIB Air Accidents Investigation: Publications & Search Reports

And do a search over the last 30 years for "fatal" for GA aircraft.

Your kidding yourself if you think the chute is going to give you anything more than a natscock benefit.

As another poster said stop eating pies and icecream and you will reduce your risk more than having a chute.

[Fuji Abound]

MJ - the CIs was only an example of longer sea crossings which are well within the capability of the Cirrus with generous fuel reserves but where the chute provides an improved chance of surviving a ditching in the event of an engine failure. There are simply times however you cut it where you simply cant get from A to B and remain in glide distance of either A or B or achieve the same by routing some other way.

[mad_jock]

I know that been to Vargar enough times in the twin with points of no return and the works.

If your daft enough to do that sort of crossing in a single in atlantic or north sea waters the least of your worries is having a chute or not and surviving the landing. If you get out afterwards its going to give you an extra 6 mins of life unless you have a survival suit on and a life raft.

If you are even attempting such trips for ****s and giggles and not a pre planned ferry your PIC skills are severely compromised that having a chute aint going to reduce the risk factor. In fact why don't you ask a ferry pilot for a north atlantic crossing if they would prefer an extra 55ltrs on board or a chute. Lets face it if they did want one and thought it would do any good they be wearing one anyway. And from what I have seen of them departing west they hammer as much fuel as possible inside and give the middle finger to the MTOW.

[mad_jock]

In fact come to think of it hitting water straight down on a chute.

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Flat wing and body onto a incompressable fluid it will be like hitting concrete.

All those bits of rope about which you can't cut even if your spine isn't shattered and you have gone from being 6ft tall down to 4 ft.

So more than likely I reckon you will be stuck inside the thing as well as having multiple bone issues through having a huge G forces applied which will proberly break your neck anyway.

Yep another huge risk reduction that one.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think it is unfortunate that virtually every thread that deals with Cirrus aircraft eventually ends up in circular arguments about whether the CAPs encourages risk taking and an implied certainty that "real" pilots don't need a parachute.

The CAP's is a capability like all other aspects of the aircraft. The folks that do the hard thinking about the when and why of how they will utilize the capability are also the ones least likely to use it.

The Muppets who couldn't be bothered to research the considerable amount of advice and opinion available through COPA and other sources, self brief their SOP, practice deployment scenarios etc etc are the ones most likely to need the capability and most likely to not use/miss use it.

In other words it is just like every other part of GA. The Muppet quotient is IMO about the same in Cirrus pilots as it is in Bonanza/Commanche/C210/Lance/Robin etc etc pilots.

The choice for me is easy. The CAPs does not sufficently ameliorate the risk of flying a single engine aircraft at night or over water or unlandable terrain. Therefor I only do those trips in multi engine aircraft. However like MJ I have much more experience then most GA pilots because I fly for a living. I also have regular training in Multi engine aircraft emergencies. The bottom line is unless you have comparable experience I think my personal opinion on using CAPs is irrelevent to your particular situation.

What is important is that if you fly a CIrrus aircraft that you do the research into what it can and can't do for you and come up with some personal SOP's that you can use to help make the hard choice when the bad thing happens and the pressure is on......

[Contacttower]

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Well it's not as if they really take the energy if you ditch conventionally either...

There have been several instances where CAPS have been deployed over water with successful outcomes; the only which wasn't was at very low altitude.

For a fixed gear aircraft if I had a chute I would pull it every time if I had to ditch, I know from having flown seaplanes just how likely the gear is likely to flip you over and I'd much rather maybe have a back injury and pretty much guarantee landing the right way up than run the risk of being upside down.

[mad_jock]

It is a weighing up of risk factors and what is likely to happen and what is not likely to happen.

You pay a premium for having a CAPS.

Now would the investment of that premium in other things negate more risk than investing it in CAPS? Say flying weekly instead of monthly.

To me and I suspect a few others an extra 55ltrs of fuel is more useful than the very remote possibilty of an engine failure. Again the same for flying over terrian which diverts need to planned sometimes hours in advance if the fuel is getting used not as predicted. Hell even sitting in the hold is preferable and getting where you actually want to go.

Now having my fair share of Spinnaker cockups in yachts in British waters I would love to see what happens when a chute plane goes in with even 10 knts of wind. I have seen mil drops go in the drink with chutes attached and they wern't floating, highly amusing, lots of swearing. Thats why they throw rafts out without chutes when dropping to stranded sailors.

[007helicopter]

My guess is something is wrong with training, examination, currency, ability etc!
Reading others here I have probably changed my mind and now accept that there are a bunch of not up to it pilots in the mix (as well as good ones)
If your a good one decide when and in what circumstances you will resort to the chute the rest ??? Go for the chute as a SOP as you are better alive than dead.

Pace, this argument is the "Real Pilots Do Not need a Chute" and those that are "not up for it" or make it SOP off airport are "Not a good Pilot"

It also shows a certain Macho attitude on your side, taking hedges out and stuff and being ok and can therefore probably do it again, I just personally think that is also quite a dangerous attitude.

I respect whatever you wish to make your SOP as and when you have the option of the chute, you seem to have great difficulty in accepting what someone else decides is correct for them as being a reasonable decision and that it makes them somehow one of the bunch of not up to it Pilots

[007helicopter]

In fact come to think of it hitting water straight down on a chute.

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Flat wing and body onto a incompressable fluid it will be like hitting concrete.

All those bits of rope about which you can't cut even if your spine isn't shattered and you have gone from being 6ft tall down to 4 ft.

So more than likely I reckon you will be stuck inside the thing as well as having multiple bone issues through having a huge G forces applied which will proberly break your neck anyway.

Yep another huge risk reduction that one.

MJ I know you are never known to exaggerate, but I think you are getting slightly carried away here, any ditching is going to be a risky business but so far all have survived various Cirrus BRS Ditchings, the last one was a Father and Daughter with Engine failure who were totally uninjured and pulled at 2000ft.

One guy near NYC did have a back injury but was still able to swim to the shore unaided and was fully recovered within 6 months, pretty much certain in that case he would have been dead without the BRS.

In terms of 10 knots, believe me it would be fine, I do accept at 30 knots plus it is going to a factor and a much higher risk.

[Pace]

007

Nothing macho about it at all and those comments were not directed at you!
The fact is I would not in all situations pull the chute when I have a fully serviceable aircraft albeit without an engine in my hands!
In most circumstances I would use the skills I was taught to use and force land not pull the chute.
If as Cirrus recommend a forcelanding is unadvisable due terrain or up in MJ land I would pull the chute.
But remember the start of the thread was about a so called instrument pilot who was unable to fly a basic procedure like flying a runway heading and then looses it in what should have been a standard rate turn.
I question some pilots not being up to it? This Guy was not does that make me macho ? If so proud to be Macho

Pace

[007helicopter]

To me and I suspect a few others an extra 55ltrs of fuel is more useful than the very remote possibilty of an engine failure. Again the same for flying over terrian which diverts need to planned sometimes hours in advance if the fuel is getting used not as predicted. Hell even sitting in the hold is preferable and getting where you actually want to go.

Except the few other 5000 people who bought a Cirrus may beg to differ, outsold Cessna, Piper and equivelant's put together I would guess.

Whats the big deal on the 55ltr of fuel you are banging on about so much. The Cirrus has around 5 hours endurance depending on what Model that can take you 800nm plus, more than enough for most PPL's to plan their route with ample fuel to spare.

Having done many 4+ hour legs to be honest that is enough for me.

[007helicopter]

The fact is I would not in all situations pull the chute when I have a fully serviceable aircraft albeit without an engine

That's probably where we differ most in opinion because I see no engine means uncertainty of landing area, you see no engine and are very confident (I might argue over confident) in your ability to in the heat of battle select a good field, arrive at a good field, and land successfully in a good field.

But remember the start of the thread was about a so called instrument pilot who was unable to fly a basic procedure like flying a runway heading and then looses it in what should have been a standard rate turn.

Yep can not argue with that, well ok just a bit.

We were not there, but we heard his account first hand, it sounds as you describe but lets be honest the system means you can get an IR never having flown in IMC, the system means you can have 6 approaches in 6 months and be legally current, yes this guy lost it on approach, he was not prepared, lost concentration, got overwhelmed, got distracted, got disorientated, did not feel well, whatever we do not know. I bet the same could happen to all sorts of guys on this site and in the wrong set of circumstances me included.

[mad_jock]

30 knts plus is normal in scotland and classed as a summer breeze in Shetland. You really don't want to see what its like when its a bit of a gale.

I think you should all have a look at the AAIB reports and see what you can really do to lower your risk exposure.

For a start if you don't do aero's you have cut a huge chunk out.

If you somehow mange to work out a way of getting to above 1000ft without actually taking off you would sort out another huge chunk.

Arranging that nobody else flys within 50 miles of you or the airport your landing at would account for another chunk. Or only fly in cloud.

Most of whats left is CFIT pilot error.

Less than 3% of the fatal accidents in the last 20 years would a CAP be of any use.

Personally I think the CAPS will be a bit of a fad which when there is no significant change in the accident rates or fatallity rates will eventually fall out of fashion. I would have thought we would have seen something by now if it was having an effect but the rates are very similar to 30-40 year old spam cans.

[007helicopter]

You pay a premium for having a CAPS.

Now would the investment of that premium in other things negate more risk than investing it in CAPS? Say flying weekly instead of monthly.

Not much of a premium in terms of the total cost of ownership, cheaper than smoking, and heck it has a 10 year maintenance free life , break it down over that period of time and to me it is about the best innovation in an industry that other than GPS was basically stagnant in terms of innovation for 4 seat SEP.

The fuel, weight, cost argument is BS and the market has proven that.

[mad_jock]

Good marketing for sales I will give you that. Realistically improving safety its really hasn't done anything significant apart from a few people giving interviews how they cheated death.

Actually stopping smoking would do more to reduce your risk flying than having a CAPS.