Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Fundamentally the crew are always the most effective way to improve safety however I do believe that safety can be improved at the margin by improvement in technology. GPWS, glass cockpits, better autopilots and now innovations like synthetic vision make a single pilot operation less stressful from the flying point of view, giving one more time to think strategically and making mistakes less likely. This should translate into more safety...and on the whole for a competent pilot I believe it does.
The problem is that, like with the chute, the benefits are obscured by the wider issue of the general poor safety record in GA because of human factors/incompetence/stupidity call it what you will...
It doesn't make those hardware improvements redundant though, and doesn't mean that for a competent pilot the chute does not have a role to play in situations were the problem is insurmountable or the conventional landing option has a poor chance of success.
Last edited by Contacttower; 24th Oct 2012 at 07:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the main threat? The pilot!!!
No one forces them to launch into xyz weather, terrain, or make a journey, it is down to PIC decision making.
Arguments about new technology, training, marketing, all have valid pro's and con's but at the end of the day PIC is responsible for the conduct of that flight.
Maybe one way of looking at it, take a Pilot like me, and a Pilot like Pace. We have different levels of experience but given the choice ( I Think) would both prefer access to a modern aircraft, call it a SR22 with a BRS Chute. We have a different outlook on when and why to use it. The aircraft is equipped with Modern avionics.
Are we any safer than in a PA28 with steam gaugues? maybe marginally.
Are we more likely to kill our selves in one type or another? probably not.
Is my or his SOP for forced landings that big a deal in actual life expectancy ? probably not.
So from what I have read while we both have a different outlook and level of training we are both likely relatively safe with our SOP.
Take a poorly trained, poor decision maker, big risk taker, not very experienced Pilot and put them in either aircraft and on average I am guessing they would have a similar chance of killing themselves in either aircraft.
So yes, in my opinion it is the Pilot.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
I really do think not enough credence is given to the confidence factor of the chuted Cirrus and its roll in creating accident situations which it is a last resort for!
Lets look at a few scenarios.
Pilot X had heart problems becoming unwell in the street the fitting of stents and he eventually got his medical back but still in the back of his mind are the heart problems he suffered.
Is Pilot X more likely to feel comfortable flying a Cirrus with the knowledge that if he ever became unwell again he could pull the chute?
Pilot A always struggled with instrument flying and although passing the ratings struggled! Other pilots knew him as someone who was really not that confident.
Pilot A was using his aircraft for a business trip and it was an IMC day
He got the TAFS and the weather was due to drop around the time of his arrival.
Pilot A thought that all would be OK he would get in the destination airport before the weather closed down and he was forced to take an instrument approach which without his instructor he was not sure he would cope with.
He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute.
Pace is used to flying high performance multi engine aircraft at night and having had a number of piston engine failures had serious doubts over flying singles at night. While an engine failure at night was unlikely the thought was there. Pace had access to a Cirrus which now gave pace another option.
Unlikely engine failure on a dark night and pace could pull the chute.
Pace was now a lot more happy flying a single piston at night!
The list goes on but looking at that accident video it is apparent that the chute is luring pilots into situations that they or the aircraft cannot handle as it is seen as a get me out of prison for free card if all goes tits up.
I have no doubts about this ignored factor and its impact on accident statistics which I am sure would be far better for the aircraft.
Some will say that it is because pilots do not pull the chute. Of course not as another said what pilot will want to wreck his aircraft? Their priority will be to try and recover before resorting to the chute and maybe leaving it too late but the comfort factor should not be ignored.
007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much
Pace
I really do think not enough credence is given to the confidence factor of the chuted Cirrus and its roll in creating accident situations which it is a last resort for!
Lets look at a few scenarios.
Pilot X had heart problems becoming unwell in the street the fitting of stents and he eventually got his medical back but still in the back of his mind are the heart problems he suffered.
Is Pilot X more likely to feel comfortable flying a Cirrus with the knowledge that if he ever became unwell again he could pull the chute?
Pilot A always struggled with instrument flying and although passing the ratings struggled! Other pilots knew him as someone who was really not that confident.
Pilot A was using his aircraft for a business trip and it was an IMC day
He got the TAFS and the weather was due to drop around the time of his arrival.
Pilot A thought that all would be OK he would get in the destination airport before the weather closed down and he was forced to take an instrument approach which without his instructor he was not sure he would cope with.
He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute.
Pace is used to flying high performance multi engine aircraft at night and having had a number of piston engine failures had serious doubts over flying singles at night. While an engine failure at night was unlikely the thought was there. Pace had access to a Cirrus which now gave pace another option.
Unlikely engine failure on a dark night and pace could pull the chute.
Pace was now a lot more happy flying a single piston at night!
The list goes on but looking at that accident video it is apparent that the chute is luring pilots into situations that they or the aircraft cannot handle as it is seen as a get me out of prison for free card if all goes tits up.
I have no doubts about this ignored factor and its impact on accident statistics which I am sure would be far better for the aircraft.
Some will say that it is because pilots do not pull the chute. Of course not as another said what pilot will want to wreck his aircraft? Their priority will be to try and recover before resorting to the chute and maybe leaving it too late but the comfort factor should not be ignored.
007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Oct 2012 at 09:59.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - I wasn't going to contribute again but honestly yours is a ridiculous argument. Of course some pilots might just about be stupid enough to rely on the chute, but you cant hold back developments such as this on the strength of your argument. I know more than a few pilots who would be really uncomfortable flying with a six pack they are so accustom to glass screens and all the extra help they provide, all sorts of changes in car engineering makes it much safer to be on the road .. .. .. so what is your point, lets not have chutes because they might encourage a few pilots to fly in conditions beyond their ability? I know plenty of instrument pilots that would find flying without an AI in IMC way beyond their ability - and its always been that way and probably always will, so do we outlaw AIs? In fact how many pilots would set off these days without an AI, but once upon a time no one had an AI in their aircraft. They hadn't been invented. No, we teach pilots new technology as well as we can, we encourage them to understand the risks and pitfalls, we explain the risks of over confidence and why you might want to still be able to fly the aircraft without a functioning AI but if they don't like the message or don't want to listen its called free will.
So I just don't understand your point - sorry.
What is it you want to do?
Ban chutes?
Teach pilots more of their possible shortcomings - well I think you will find almost all Cirrus pilots are a pretty well informed lot these days - some may have come to a different conclusion that you, but I would suggest that is their prerogative.
Legislate to ensure no one could argue they haven't been informed? It doesn't work! We inform smokers every day that it will kill you if you smoke, but they keep buying the packs. They actually pay to kill themselves. You can tell pilots till you are blue in the face dont rely on the chute - but some will. You can tell instrument pilots how important it is to keep current, to be able to fly on partial panel etc., but some will fly without being current and some will suffer become partial panel and lose control.
What is it you seek?
So I just don't understand your point - sorry.
What is it you want to do?
Ban chutes?
Teach pilots more of their possible shortcomings - well I think you will find almost all Cirrus pilots are a pretty well informed lot these days - some may have come to a different conclusion that you, but I would suggest that is their prerogative.
Legislate to ensure no one could argue they haven't been informed? It doesn't work! We inform smokers every day that it will kill you if you smoke, but they keep buying the packs. They actually pay to kill themselves. You can tell pilots till you are blue in the face dont rely on the chute - but some will. You can tell instrument pilots how important it is to keep current, to be able to fly on partial panel etc., but some will fly without being current and some will suffer become partial panel and lose control.
What is it you seek?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it you seek
An informed discussion about all the pros and cons of what is a first from a major manufacturer.
I think you will find the fact that it is a first will generate a lot of discussion which is only natural!
When we start to move away from taught practice ie engine failure is it odd to you that that should not also be discussed.
As for the chute as I have posted I have shifted my opinion through discussions with people like you and 007.
I have also posted that I hope other manufacturers follow suit so hardly wanting to ban chutes infact the very opposite.
Fuji I hope it is fully discussed and not taken as an attack on Cirrus. Because there are important points to fully discuss.
Further the manufacturer has not given definative directions on its use for reasons you have stated so when and where to use the chute will be unofficial and open to personal interpretation hence more important that every angle is discussed.
007 with his pull on all engine failure policy had not considered winds and a possible 30mph plus forward impact.
Now he is aware of that it may add some further thought in his pull or not to pull decisions.
So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail???
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Oct 2012 at 11:17.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail???
My "concern" was the discussion doesn't become circular.
To be fair you have promoted the notion on numerous occasions that the chute might engender over confidence in some pilots - I don't think anyone disputes that is a possibility.
To be fair you have also promoted the idea that Cirrus should say more about the chute - we debated why they don't, and I cant see anyone has anything new or different to contribute.
I just dont see what you were seeking to achieve, or add to the debate, by giving some circumstances in which pilot's might be overly confident because of the chute - no one is disagreeing with you! On the assumption that much you accept, I assumed there was something else on your mind - but I cant understand what it could be?
That is why from my point of view unless anyone really has anything new to contribute I think the thread has run its course for now - but as I said above go round in circles as much as you like for all I care.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace:
It has been interesting to observe the fruits of much fine-detailed thinking and discussion that has been going on amongst Cirrus/BRS manufacturers/owners/pilots - for over ten years now- making its way to you via PPRUNE, 007 and effectively COPA.
I admire that you have been able to absorb new points, evolve your point of view and share sensible counter-points in the discussion (eg 30 knot surface winds) and grow your (and wider) appreciation for the safety value, subtleties and pitfalls presented by the existence of BRS through discussion.
You have an appetite to discuss even further detail, but I think you dissuade discussion of finer detail by simultaneously persisting with highly subjective propositions. E.g. "He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute."
If there are those who regard a chute pull as a no-consequences get out jail free 'easy out' reason to go flying where/when they should not their lack judgement (and imagination) is a very big risk to them, period. Perhaps any population has a small Darwinian element, whose behaviors (actual or perceived) tend to be given greater prominence in discussion than those of the vast majority who would gain value from discussion of points that they themselves can consider/control/influence.
Finer discussion on BRS would largely be about exploring more of the many grey areas in more depth than a quest for "Black and White" answers/POH content. Factors present in a real-life pull/no-pull circumstance are so many and varied and preclude the concrete 'circumstance proof' guidance that you seek.
Identifying, considering and incorporating (or not) those factors into "SOPS" is where each individual BRS pilot makes his own choice - even as to whether or not he/she chooses to explore/discuss them - and is where discussion threads like these can, I believe, contribute to participants safety (excepting another very small part of the population whose judgement and performance is so consistently high that they will, with no need of a BRS, either safely handle any circumstance which fate might send their way, or accept that fate if not able to effect a good outcome for whatever reason).
It has been interesting to observe the fruits of much fine-detailed thinking and discussion that has been going on amongst Cirrus/BRS manufacturers/owners/pilots - for over ten years now- making its way to you via PPRUNE, 007 and effectively COPA.
I admire that you have been able to absorb new points, evolve your point of view and share sensible counter-points in the discussion (eg 30 knot surface winds) and grow your (and wider) appreciation for the safety value, subtleties and pitfalls presented by the existence of BRS through discussion.
You have an appetite to discuss even further detail, but I think you dissuade discussion of finer detail by simultaneously persisting with highly subjective propositions. E.g. "He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute."
If there are those who regard a chute pull as a no-consequences get out jail free 'easy out' reason to go flying where/when they should not their lack judgement (and imagination) is a very big risk to them, period. Perhaps any population has a small Darwinian element, whose behaviors (actual or perceived) tend to be given greater prominence in discussion than those of the vast majority who would gain value from discussion of points that they themselves can consider/control/influence.
Finer discussion on BRS would largely be about exploring more of the many grey areas in more depth than a quest for "Black and White" answers/POH content. Factors present in a real-life pull/no-pull circumstance are so many and varied and preclude the concrete 'circumstance proof' guidance that you seek.
Identifying, considering and incorporating (or not) those factors into "SOPS" is where each individual BRS pilot makes his own choice - even as to whether or not he/she chooses to explore/discuss them - and is where discussion threads like these can, I believe, contribute to participants safety (excepting another very small part of the population whose judgement and performance is so consistently high that they will, with no need of a BRS, either safely handle any circumstance which fate might send their way, or accept that fate if not able to effect a good outcome for whatever reason).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much
For some it may just be to risky to fly a SEP without a chute, I now have flown nothing else (other than helicopters) for the last 4-5 years and for me I personally prefer the Cirrus I feel comfortable and confident in and am not sure how I would feel about going to a non BRS aircraft as a permanent option, it would feel like a backward step and in my mind increase my risk.
My partner would strongly agree and in many ways I feel partners and uninformed passengers think it is "ammazing and fantastic to have a chute" and they have an over optimistic view of its value but it certainly makes the uninformed feel much safer.
I am trying to think about my own situation and in the cold light of day, I would have to confess yes it does expand my risk taking, lets use IMC as an example, I am reasonably proficient but would not say great in IMC. I do value the Autopilot greatly for long journeys and times of high work load, I know I would not do many long journeys in a non auto pilot, non glass, non BRS equipped aircraft because I am use to these tools and I would now feel unsafe and partially naked without them.
If they fail me I train and practice and think I can do a reasonable job of getting back to the ground intact.
But yes, if I get over whelmed and can not cope with the conditions, then in reality that last resort is there, and to some degree even if only subconsciously it must effect my decision making.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 24th Oct 2012 at 16:32.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you! I would use the chute more than I would have done when we discussed the chute originally and I hope you might not be quite so trigger happy with the chute as you were? I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions!
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?
Pace
I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you! I would use the chute more than I would have done when we discussed the chute originally and I hope you might not be quite so trigger happy with the chute as you were? I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions!
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice.
Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet.
Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just below 500 feet the most likely point for an engine failure but in strong wind flying where you may deeply regret pulling the chute rather than using those strong winds to your advantage in a forced landing!
So yes if your not confident in forced landings practice them time and time again until you are.
The chute is a major safety development but not a replacement for lack of skills!
If as Fuji says I go round in circles so be it
Must practice my holding patterns
Pace
So yes if your not confident in forced landings practice them time and time again until you are.
The chute is a major safety development but not a replacement for lack of skills!
If as Fuji says I go round in circles so be it
Must practice my holding patterns
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you!
I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you!
I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions!
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?
Maybe they do not need too anymore ?
I suppose everyone would argue it is easy to arrive on the airfield from 2000ft directly overhead, but I think even that is not that easy to do everytime and not come up short, so it reinforced my limitations in this situation, but I will continue to practice, when you come down we can do a dozen.
"I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice.
Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet.
At higher altitudes if you fully trim back it pretty much gives you best glide speed so you can then concentrate more on getting it started, looking for a landing spot, or deciding when to pull.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sillert I see your point but I think plenty without a chute are lousy at PFL's, how many time do they come up short and the instructor says, shall we have another go?
I understand what you are getting at but remember as long as you keep flying and do not stall/spin in the incidence of fatal/serious injury in a forced landing are low!
You also presume that in an uncontrolled descent under the chute there is no risk which I would dispute!
Infact at a guess equal or worse than a forced landing especially if there is wind around.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Oct 2012 at 08:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also presume that in an uncontrolled descent under the chute there is no risk which I would dispute!
No where have I ever stated there is no risk, you
put words into my mouth !!
I have gone out of my way to acknowledge risk under a CAPS pull and fully recognize despite all CAPS pull's to date in a Cirrus within limitations no one has died but this record can not continue.
Of course there is risk - just in my opinion less than a forced landing, under stress, in a field, that looked good at 1000ft, where plenty have cocked it up and died.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 27th Oct 2012 at 09:05.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
We have done this to death and only time will tell if your attitude to a chute pull for engine failure is correct. There are situations where I would pull the chute on engine failure mainly at night or over unsuitable terrain.
But I am not in a position to judge whether you are right or wrong so no hard feelings and I am looking forward to meeting up and getting a flight with you!
Pace
We have done this to death and only time will tell if your attitude to a chute pull for engine failure is correct. There are situations where I would pull the chute on engine failure mainly at night or over unsuitable terrain.
But I am not in a position to judge whether you are right or wrong so no hard feelings and I am looking forward to meeting up and getting a flight with you!
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to find a link for it online and don;t know if its been mentioned.
But the last GASCO newsletter had a refence to a study about EFIS displays and an increasing accident rate in the TO approach and go-around phases.
Does anyone have a link to said study?
But the last GASCO newsletter had a refence to a study about EFIS displays and an increasing accident rate in the TO approach and go-around phases.
Does anyone have a link to said study?
