Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah it would be the competent pilots float and would have a well stocked bar on it
The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock.
Our float would have a basic first aid kit which would only be opened as a last resort preferably by peeling the seal off so you could stick it back on again. The driver would avoid pot holes and take a suitable route to minimise the risk of anyone falling off.
The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock.
Our float would have a basic first aid kit which would only be opened as a last resort preferably by peeling the seal off so you could stick it back on again. The driver would avoid pot holes and take a suitable route to minimise the risk of anyone falling off.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock.
bloody marvellous, good one MJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Glide Speed @ 3400 lb = 88 Knots IAS
Maximum Glide Ratio 9.6 : 1 so at 10,000ft AGL is 16 miles best glide
Which at that altitude does give you quite a lot of options for nearest airport or an off airfield site if that is your thing.
Maximum Glide Ratio 9.6 : 1 so at 10,000ft AGL is 16 miles best glide
Which at that altitude does give you quite a lot of options for nearest airport or an off airfield site if that is your thing.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest does anyone know the glide ratio of a Cirrus? I couldn't find it in a quick look on the manufacturer's site.
007 only joking in a nice way
I have moved a long way on using the chute!Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Oct 2012 at 20:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or from 2000ft around 3 miles to glide to the scene of the crash, if in doubt use the chute
If nothing else it would sure get the attention of the fire crew.
Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes
Last edited by 007helicopter; 22nd Oct 2012 at 20:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007 only joking in a nice way
I think we better call this informative and highly factual debate to an end, I want to quit while I am clearly winning the argument.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 22nd Oct 2012 at 20:25.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.6:1? I imagined it might be better than that probably because it looks quite slippery. I was prompted in this from MJ's talk of flying over the Cairngoms or, as we pedants prefer, the Grampians which I've been over many times myself. There's one bit where not much presents as a get-out but generally a valley offers a route to lower ground, but of course glide ratio counts.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007 - before you head off, just watched that COPA lecture. It makes some pretty compelling and persuasive arguments for the chute - and for the avoidance of doubt - I'm an a great advocate of it.
As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk?
MJ - you really are hard work, aren't you? This twaddle about having an additional 55 litres of fuel giving you a safer option than a chute? I mean, as if you are going to arrive at the same point with an "additional" 55 litres more in your 182(?) than you would do in a Cirrus? Nonsense! You plan your flight exactly the same way, reserves included. You are surely not trying to convince us that because you aren't carrying a chute, you always have an additional 55 litres on fuel on board at all times?
Everyone falls into to the either for or against camp when it comes to the chute. I personally, am in favour. To those of you that think you are so experienced etc. etc. that you are infallible to making any mistakes, incurring any technical or physical difficulties etc, I think you are kidding yourselves.
As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk?
MJ - you really are hard work, aren't you? This twaddle about having an additional 55 litres of fuel giving you a safer option than a chute? I mean, as if you are going to arrive at the same point with an "additional" 55 litres more in your 182(?) than you would do in a Cirrus? Nonsense! You plan your flight exactly the same way, reserves included. You are surely not trying to convince us that because you aren't carrying a chute, you always have an additional 55 litres on fuel on board at all times?
Everyone falls into to the either for or against camp when it comes to the chute. I personally, am in favour. To those of you that think you are so experienced etc. etc. that you are infallible to making any mistakes, incurring any technical or physical difficulties etc, I think you are kidding yourselves.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I am just a pilot that has done alot of routes with min IFR fuel onboard and to me any extra fuel means extra in the hold multiple diversion options and a distinct reduction in bum twitching.
Never felt the need for a chute yet. Glad I have had extra fuel onboard weekly and I suspect daily in the not so distant future with winter coming and runway de-icing becoming a factor.
Carrying fuel burns fuel just as carrying any other dead weight.
O have you seen whats going to hit on friday in the UK?
Now that is a major ballache on the horizon.
And I say again look at the accident reports you are reducing your risk by a miniscule amount.
Never felt the need for a chute yet. Glad I have had extra fuel onboard weekly and I suspect daily in the not so distant future with winter coming and runway de-icing becoming a factor.
Carrying fuel burns fuel just as carrying any other dead weight.
O have you seen whats going to hit on friday in the UK?
Now that is a major ballache on the horizon.
And I say again look at the accident reports you are reducing your risk by a miniscule amount.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chute and the fuel are in fact both energy management devices. Simples really.
The fuel gives you the energy to go further, the chute gives you the ability to dissipate all the energy you don't want really quickly.
When we sail, get utterly exhausted after a pounding and have had enough of surfacing down 40 foot waves (been there, done it, really) we chuck the chute over the stern ( and we might even chuck it over the bow these days) because it absorbs all that horribly energy and restores tranquility. I give the analogy because MJ mentioned sailing.
So I still like the idea of being able to change energy in to speed and distance but because I am a wimp I like the idea of being able to dump the energy really quickly when its too much for me, because the most precious thing fly aeros has taught me is life is all about energy management. Always be the master of the energy and you will be safe, let energy become your master and you are dead.
Yep, great discussion, thank you, thanks MJ and Pace for mixing it up and challenging the ideas and I am sure we will come back to this one but its probably come full circle for me after however many pages.
The fuel gives you the energy to go further, the chute gives you the ability to dissipate all the energy you don't want really quickly.
When we sail, get utterly exhausted after a pounding and have had enough of surfacing down 40 foot waves (been there, done it, really) we chuck the chute over the stern ( and we might even chuck it over the bow these days) because it absorbs all that horribly energy and restores tranquility. I give the analogy because MJ mentioned sailing.
So I still like the idea of being able to change energy in to speed and distance but because I am a wimp I like the idea of being able to dump the energy really quickly when its too much for me, because the most precious thing fly aeros has taught me is life is all about energy management. Always be the master of the energy and you will be safe, let energy become your master and you are dead.
Yep, great discussion, thank you, thanks MJ and Pace for mixing it up and challenging the ideas and I am sure we will come back to this one but its probably come full circle for me after however many pages.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put.
Just in my experence its been so rare its never happened to me that I have wanted to dump all the energy. Now wanting to go further or have the option because it opens up more escape routes....... yep thats the one for me.
Just in my experence its been so rare its never happened to me that I have wanted to dump all the energy. Now wanting to go further or have the option because it opens up more escape routes....... yep thats the one for me.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree MJ the overall risk reduction of the chute is probably not particularly high for a competent and current pilot because as you point out most accidents are caused by some sort of human error/failure of judgement. Also there are few accidents caused by truly insurmountable mechanical failures and many caused by the mismanagement of those failures...the Cirrus at Zurich a few years ago springs to mind for example... (where ironically had they just pulled the chute from the outset they would have looked very silly but probably the pilot would have lived nonetheless)
However there are a few CAPS deployments on the now famous Cirrus list that stand out for me and make me think that for what is actually quite a small penalty in terms of weight (in fact I don't really think it is at all in the real world as the Cirrus W&B compares reasonably well with it's competitors) if I were buying an aircraft tomorrow and were thinking of getting a fast single the CAPS would be a big pro for the Cirrus.
The chute deployment instances like the broken aileron, the guy who had a seizure or the engine failure over water demonstrate the apart from saving people from themselves the chute can be very good at saving those very rare instances that despite being very unlikely...do happen. It may not add that much overall safety, but it's another layer of safety on top of currency, good training etc that one day one might just be glad of.
I also find it strange that Cirrus pilot's come in for criticism in the area of training. As a manufacturer Cirrus probably takes more interest in the training of the people who fly them than any other. The standardised course is a very good idea and the Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association is probably more active in the role of dissemination of advice and acting as a forum for ideas than any other association for a light single. Unfortunately they can't force everyone to take part in it...
However there are a few CAPS deployments on the now famous Cirrus list that stand out for me and make me think that for what is actually quite a small penalty in terms of weight (in fact I don't really think it is at all in the real world as the Cirrus W&B compares reasonably well with it's competitors) if I were buying an aircraft tomorrow and were thinking of getting a fast single the CAPS would be a big pro for the Cirrus.
The chute deployment instances like the broken aileron, the guy who had a seizure or the engine failure over water demonstrate the apart from saving people from themselves the chute can be very good at saving those very rare instances that despite being very unlikely...do happen. It may not add that much overall safety, but it's another layer of safety on top of currency, good training etc that one day one might just be glad of.
I also find it strange that Cirrus pilot's come in for criticism in the area of training. As a manufacturer Cirrus probably takes more interest in the training of the people who fly them than any other. The standardised course is a very good idea and the Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association is probably more active in the role of dissemination of advice and acting as a forum for ideas than any other association for a light single. Unfortunately they can't force everyone to take part in it...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact Tower
For me the biggest plus for the chute is the passengers. PPLs do vary a lot in their abilities and currency.
A failure in a single pilot either because he becomes ill or gets into more than he can handle means the pilot and passengers have a way of getting out of the situation.
Not only can the pilot pull the chute but also the passengers which means that they have control over their destiny too.
Looking at the video it is plain to see that the chute has encouraged pilots into situations where they are out of their depth. A lot of chute pulls have been loss of control in IMC or Icing pilots being where they are not competant to be as in this case.
A get out of jail for free card. That needs to be looked at in more detail and may account for the no better than average safety stats.
I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures.
I would certainly not use it above a city where I could glide clear or over flat greenfields or where surface winds are above 10 kts!
I would only use it for engine failure where there was no suitable landing spot. Over dense forest or mountains!
But yes the way to go for PPL SEP flying but with some cautions and caveats and certainly NOT a replacement for solid piloting skills.
One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it.
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision
Pace
For me the biggest plus for the chute is the passengers. PPLs do vary a lot in their abilities and currency.
A failure in a single pilot either because he becomes ill or gets into more than he can handle means the pilot and passengers have a way of getting out of the situation.
Not only can the pilot pull the chute but also the passengers which means that they have control over their destiny too.
Looking at the video it is plain to see that the chute has encouraged pilots into situations where they are out of their depth. A lot of chute pulls have been loss of control in IMC or Icing pilots being where they are not competant to be as in this case.
A get out of jail for free card. That needs to be looked at in more detail and may account for the no better than average safety stats.
I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures.
I would certainly not use it above a city where I could glide clear or over flat greenfields or where surface winds are above 10 kts!
I would only use it for engine failure where there was no suitable landing spot. Over dense forest or mountains!
But yes the way to go for PPL SEP flying but with some cautions and caveats and certainly NOT a replacement for solid piloting skills.
One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it.
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Oct 2012 at 10:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk?
I do not do much night flying and to be honest I am not current.
I do quite often fly over very inhospitable terrain on my travels and there is still a significant risk with the chute in this environment which can only be worse at night, at least in day you may be able to glide to a better area to deploy and have a chance of being found by SAR.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 23rd Oct 2012 at 17:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures.
Seriously I accept totally this SOP is not right for everyone but with my SOP I think I have a pretty reasonable chance of survival, or probably a much better than average chance of survival. However straight forward engine failure is not the main threat.
One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it.
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision
The worst thing with this extra option is indecision
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they won't want to hear that Pace.It doesn't matter what techno gadgets you fit on an aircraft it will always boil down to that fact.
You can throw 100's of thousands if not millions at a airframe you won't change the statistics at all, its all dependent on the person flying it.
It's actually quite amusing.
Just had a discussion tonight why I won't fly Air France with a frog. They couldn't understand the difference that BA have a fleet of auld ****e haulers but I would be happy to fly with them because of the folk at the front but I wouldn't be happy to fly with the newer AF fleet because of the issues they have with the crew standards.