Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO, it was the V tail Bonanza, which got the tag of Doctor Killer. A great deal of myth, but basically, yes, well heeled individuals, jumping into a fast aeroplane, which required training and understanding, with a cruise pretty close to Vne. Put the nose down, and well, it broke up.
Stories of guys running into VMC, and stuffing the nose down, the usual stuff.......
Later models had a mod, strengthening the ruddervator area, however, this was a mod, and the original issue of high speed, slick airframe, still holds. Speed management skills, and a good understanding of its capabilities, a much required pre-requisite on this aeroplane.
No, I do not think Cirrus owners are 'different', i just think the mentality of 'what can go wrong with this thing', is perhaps an issue.
Stories of guys running into VMC, and stuffing the nose down, the usual stuff.......
Later models had a mod, strengthening the ruddervator area, however, this was a mod, and the original issue of high speed, slick airframe, still holds. Speed management skills, and a good understanding of its capabilities, a much required pre-requisite on this aeroplane.
No, I do not think Cirrus owners are 'different', i just think the mentality of 'what can go wrong with this thing', is perhaps an issue.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont Overfil
The Doctor Killer was the single engine V tailed Bonanza not the Baron.
The short time I have experienced the Cirrus The main trait I noticed was a very lively roll rate which I timed as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine.
hand flown by an inexperienced instrument pilot it would be easy to over control in roll which is what appears to have happened here!
I loved the Cirrus and its chute the main question in my mind being that having the chute will....
A) lull inexperienced or uncurrent pilots into just the situation where they need to use the chute ie at night or into bad weather.
B) Because of its effectiveness a question mark over overuse of the chute when a competent pilot should not need to use it.
I feel there should be more discussion on when the chute should be used ie for engine failure.
C) a clarification of where not to use the chute unless the aircraft is unflyable ie over built up areas.
I do see a comparison with a pilot wearing a chute. When would he vacate the aircraft? Would he vacate and abandon the aircraft if the aircraft engine stopped? NO
Would he vacate in bad weather NO and YES only when loss of control occurs
Would he abandon ship on engine failure at night?
The fact that the chute lowers the aircraft to the ground and not one occupant seems to change the emphasis of when and where the chute should be used and in what circumstances?
That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!
Pace
The Doctor Killer was the single engine V tailed Bonanza not the Baron.
The short time I have experienced the Cirrus The main trait I noticed was a very lively roll rate which I timed as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine.
hand flown by an inexperienced instrument pilot it would be easy to over control in roll which is what appears to have happened here!
I loved the Cirrus and its chute the main question in my mind being that having the chute will....
A) lull inexperienced or uncurrent pilots into just the situation where they need to use the chute ie at night or into bad weather.
B) Because of its effectiveness a question mark over overuse of the chute when a competent pilot should not need to use it.
I feel there should be more discussion on when the chute should be used ie for engine failure.
C) a clarification of where not to use the chute unless the aircraft is unflyable ie over built up areas.
I do see a comparison with a pilot wearing a chute. When would he vacate the aircraft? Would he vacate and abandon the aircraft if the aircraft engine stopped? NO
Would he vacate in bad weather NO and YES only when loss of control occurs
Would he abandon ship on engine failure at night?
The fact that the chute lowers the aircraft to the ground and not one occupant seems to change the emphasis of when and where the chute should be used and in what circumstances?
That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Oct 2012 at 15:09.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most have suffered from the leans at some time. It is never comfortable.
It would seem the pilot had a perfectly good autopilot available. Use it. It will maintain the aircraft in level flight and it will maintain a 700 foot rate of climb with three button pushes and a twiddle of the heading bug.
I actually don't think this is much to do with the chute which is why I tried to steer the discussion away from this aspect before my thread got combined with this one.
I think far more relevant is how and when to resort to the autopilot and in what circumstances this might not be enough to save the day. In the circumstances as appear to be described and given that I felt extremely disorientated the first thing I would have done would have been to engage the autopilot, then set up a climb to establish terrain clearance, then done a reality check on my heading to ensure it was the "best" heading to take up, then possibly declare a Pan given that I wasnt fly the published missed nor had I informed AT my intentions. Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?
It would seem the pilot had a perfectly good autopilot available. Use it. It will maintain the aircraft in level flight and it will maintain a 700 foot rate of climb with three button pushes and a twiddle of the heading bug.
I actually don't think this is much to do with the chute which is why I tried to steer the discussion away from this aspect before my thread got combined with this one.
I think far more relevant is how and when to resort to the autopilot and in what circumstances this might not be enough to save the day. In the circumstances as appear to be described and given that I felt extremely disorientated the first thing I would have done would have been to engage the autopilot, then set up a climb to establish terrain clearance, then done a reality check on my heading to ensure it was the "best" heading to take up, then possibly declare a Pan given that I wasnt fly the published missed nor had I informed AT my intentions. Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?
In bad weather and moderate to severe turbulence, windshear icing just to name a few.
All these gadgets should be an addition to piloting skills not a replacement for lack of piloting skills.
But yes in this specific situation I do not understand why the pilot did not use the autopilot!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Oct 2012 at 15:16.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That brings in further questions of the manufacturer endorsing and being more specific of when and where the chute should be deployed.
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!
The manufacturer seems reluctant probably for liability issues to be specific on a development which is exciting and challenges conventional pilot training!
What do you mean by
Challenges conventional training.
The chute??? How is that precisely?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxRed
There is already as discussed earlier in the thread a manufacturer SOP for engine failure where use of the chute is mentioned if a conventional forced landing is not possible or advisable!
Others consider the chute should be used as a SOP for all engine failure!
That contradicts the manufacturer recommendations.
So we instantly have a conflict of opinion.
That is one example!
Conventional training is to force land hence use if the chute for engine failure is against conventional training!
Hope that makes things clearer ?
Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?
Pace
There is already as discussed earlier in the thread a manufacturer SOP for engine failure where use of the chute is mentioned if a conventional forced landing is not possible or advisable!
Others consider the chute should be used as a SOP for all engine failure!
That contradicts the manufacturer recommendations.
So we instantly have a conflict of opinion.
That is one example!
Conventional training is to force land hence use if the chute for engine failure is against conventional training!
Hope that makes things clearer ?
Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it reasonable / possible that the confusion was so great that the pilot did not consider and alternative along these lines, and would you have gone about the "problem" in some other way? At what height and / or in what circumstances would you not consider the autopilot an option?
If he was good enough to quickly and deftly use the autopilot to regain control he likely would never have got in that situation in the first place.
The latest perspective Cirrus aircraft have one blue button on the autopilot, press it and the autopilot will immediately regain straight and level.
To achieve this with the STEC55 you would sync the heading bug, hit HDG and ALT and regain straight and level flight - under high stress I bet a few of us could mess up that simple flow.
Most chute pulls are going to attract a fair amount of criticism whatever the circumstances, often it may well be justified, often I think there for the grace of god go I.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!
What I did see is the above, which appears to contradict what you have said in your last post.
Hence my confusion at your posts. I am away to look up the SOP from Cirrus.
Chute ? Is it spelt wrong ?
Last edited by maxred; 11th Oct 2012 at 19:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dark question is, - does perceived and added safety features, push individuals into ever more risk. I think yes, however, those indivuduals may have gone there anyway, safety feature or not.
I personally do not think it increase the risk profile significantly of most Cirrus Pilots That I personally know, like wise having ABS breaks and Air Bags in my car does not make me take more risks in my car
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxRed
My deepest and sincerest apologies
it was posted up in the other long thread on Cirrus and was the as stated the Cirrus standpoint on the use of the chute regarding engine failure.
Basically glide to a suitable landing spot (ie conventional) If one is not available you may want to consider using the chute (unconventional)
I am sure someone will post up the exact extract for you or when I get back later I will wade through the stream of posts and place it up here just for your good self to peruse
many Cirrus instructors and clubs are wanting the chute to be used as a SOP for engine failure which is not approved by Cirrus or conventional engine failure procedures. That maybe the right thing to do but in my book Cirrus should endorse it!
Just through intense and absolute interest how does my quote above contradict what i have said I stand by every word
Pace
My deepest and sincerest apologies
it was posted up in the other long thread on Cirrus and was the as stated the Cirrus standpoint on the use of the chute regarding engine failure.Basically glide to a suitable landing spot (ie conventional) If one is not available you may want to consider using the chute (unconventional)
I am sure someone will post up the exact extract for you or when I get back later I will wade through the stream of posts and place it up here just for your good self to peruse
many Cirrus instructors and clubs are wanting the chute to be used as a SOP for engine failure which is not approved by Cirrus or conventional engine failure procedures. That maybe the right thing to do but in my book Cirrus should endorse it!
At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Oct 2012 at 20:43.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - now steady on, I posted last time what Cirrus have to say and this was discussed. While the wording has changed over the years effectively Cirrus simply say in the event of an engine failure it is for the pilot to assess whether or not a successful forced landing is an option and if it is not, use the chute. What else could they possibly say? Its obvious that you can neither force land an aircraft or land an aircraft under a chute with any absolute guarantee of a successful outcome. You would simply be opening yourself to the most ridiculous litigation were you to endorse the use of the chute in all circumstances.
Its really very little different from so called cross wind limits. the vast majority of manufacturers have shied awaiting from including a xwl in the POH because they know full well some pilots will fail at the demonstrated limit and some will be successful in much greater xw. What do you want them to do? If they say the aircraft is safe to land with a 25 knot cross wind component and the pilot gives it a go and rolls the aircraft is it the manufacturers fault? Just as with the chute some will enjoy a successful outcome, and some will not - the only difference is the success of the chute is in the hands of the Gods the success of the landing is in the pilots hands, albeit not to the same extent with an off airport landing.
You want certainty, when there cant be certainty, any more than there cant be certainty every time we get into the cockpit of a SEP that the engine will not quit on us or the driver of the coach wont have a heart attack on the motorway.
Its really very little different from so called cross wind limits. the vast majority of manufacturers have shied awaiting from including a xwl in the POH because they know full well some pilots will fail at the demonstrated limit and some will be successful in much greater xw. What do you want them to do? If they say the aircraft is safe to land with a 25 knot cross wind component and the pilot gives it a go and rolls the aircraft is it the manufacturers fault? Just as with the chute some will enjoy a successful outcome, and some will not - the only difference is the success of the chute is in the hands of the Gods the success of the landing is in the pilots hands, albeit not to the same extent with an off airport landing.
You want certainty, when there cant be certainty, any more than there cant be certainty every time we get into the cockpit of a SEP that the engine will not quit on us or the driver of the coach wont have a heart attack on the motorway.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I think the above is the Cirrus recommendations? I note they say Cap Deployment MAYBE required
So basically Cirrus recommend a conventional forced landing and only if one is not possible or advisable to consider the use of the chute.
So Cirrus are cautious about even telling pilots to use the chute by adding the word MAYBE.
That is very different to what Pilots like 007 are contemplating which is to use the chute in ALL cases of engine failure as a SOP.
That idea is being heralded by instructors and various Cirrus clubs with no backup from the manufacturer.
It may or may not be the right thing to do using the chute in all engine failure situations but on whos advice?
That would indeed be a departure from conventional training and procedures for engine failure in a SEP? As such it should be approved by either the CAA or Cirrus not a concocted home made procedure by certain instructors off their own bat!
I am convinced with the chute and the aircraft but feel there should be more official guidance on its use.
Fuji I am sure you understand what I am getting at here?
Cirrus are happy to endorse a conventional forced landing but not one with the chute they leave that in your court!
Cirrus would be open to equal litigation telling you to force land as telling you to use the chute for engine failure
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Oct 2012 at 22:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle. Only the pilot can weigh in the balance his currency and skill against the available sites against the risks of the chute. Surely you arent seeking to have cirrus alleviate the pilot of making that assessment nor could you unless you could demonstrate the chute would always produce a better outcome.
As i said earlier you are arguing for certainty where there can be done. You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give. Based on the evidence they may well in time be able to say on average the chute is always likely to give a better outcome but even that is not the certainty you are seeking. Pohs can be wrong (i had an incident which resulted in the poh being changed), pohs evolve, pohs have plenty of instances were you run the flow chart but ultimately can run out of options - the pilot is left to make the decision.
As i said earlier you are arguing for certainty where there can be done. You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give. Based on the evidence they may well in time be able to say on average the chute is always likely to give a better outcome but even that is not the certainty you are seeking. Pohs can be wrong (i had an incident which resulted in the poh being changed), pohs evolve, pohs have plenty of instances were you run the flow chart but ultimately can run out of options - the pilot is left to make the decision.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
In your last few posts you seem to be very caught up in conventual v unconventional forced landing.
Just remember conventual is only conventual because no parachute was widely available before the Cirrus came along!
If all air raft ad chutes available then conventual forced landings might be something else!
In your last few posts you seem to be very caught up in conventual v unconventional forced landing.
Just remember conventual is only conventual because no parachute was widely available before the Cirrus came along!
If all air raft ad chutes available then conventual forced landings might be something else!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
The above is a quote from 007Helicopter who states he will not consider a forced landing only the chute in any circumstances and this is an idea doing the rounds!
007Helicopter and others maybe correct but this is way away from conventional teaching and procedures for engine failure and if it is to be used in all scenarios the idea and new training needs to be endorsed by the CAA or Cirrus
Of course they can give guidance! If I get a problem in the Jet I fly i go instantly to the emergency handbook or the manual! If Cessna can do it with their Citation how come Cirrus cannot?
Pace
In terms of when I am flying a Cirrus I have a pre determined decision already made that it is not an option I will take however good the field looks. Whatever happens in the event of an off airport landing required it will be at 17 knots vertically for better or worse.
Pace i dont think any serious person is suggesting use the chute in every circumstance. If there is a socking great field in front of you mown to better than wimbelon standards you would hardly reach for the handle.
You are wanting cirrus to give guidance they could never give.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Oct 2012 at 22:56.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace 007 must answer for himself. Cirrus are not and cannot endorse a pull in every situation nor should a current pilot mindlessly pull if the engine fails downwind unless he feels unable to recover to the runway, given in almost any wind the chute can only result in an off airport landing.
I think copa are moving towards pilots pulling in the vast majority of cases but i dont see where this requires the caas involvement. Where is the evidence that current practise is unsafe - in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary.
I do however take your point that perhaps it could be argued the chute is as much a variance as glass so the pilot should require an endorsement that he has had chute training - my concern is where is the evidence of a need for this training. Would we end up with regulation for regulation sake yet again!
Pace with regard to guidance you know that is not what i said. I said cirrus cant give certainty. They already give guidance. What you seem not to like is that when you flow chart the problem the final box neither says pull the handle or land in a field. It says weigh the risks and make your own decision. It could not possibly say anything else.
I think copa are moving towards pilots pulling in the vast majority of cases but i dont see where this requires the caas involvement. Where is the evidence that current practise is unsafe - in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary.
I do however take your point that perhaps it could be argued the chute is as much a variance as glass so the pilot should require an endorsement that he has had chute training - my concern is where is the evidence of a need for this training. Would we end up with regulation for regulation sake yet again!
Pace with regard to guidance you know that is not what i said. I said cirrus cant give certainty. They already give guidance. What you seem not to like is that when you flow chart the problem the final box neither says pull the handle or land in a field. It says weigh the risks and make your own decision. It could not possibly say anything else.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 11th Oct 2012 at 23:07.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus is a general aviation plane flown mostly by amateur pilots like myself. Each of us has his own true talent, his own currency and his own perceptions each day. We're not all going to fly like the best or the worst of us so there will not be a policy that fits all of us, all the regulatory bodies and all the liability lawyers. Why expect or seek it?
I know of only a couple situations in which I would cede my control to the chute, but I fly about 150 hours per year. Why should someone who flies more (or less) than I be stuck with only one policy? A pilot who flies a Cirrus 400 or more hours per year may be very confident in his ability to regain his SA at 1000 feet AGL with a sudden emergency (is this confidence or arrogance?). Someone with 50 will have a very different experience set from which to make his decision.
I know of only a couple situations in which I would cede my control to the chute, but I fly about 150 hours per year. Why should someone who flies more (or less) than I be stuck with only one policy? A pilot who flies a Cirrus 400 or more hours per year may be very confident in his ability to regain his SA at 1000 feet AGL with a sudden emergency (is this confidence or arrogance?). Someone with 50 will have a very different experience set from which to make his decision.
Last edited by AviatorTB; 12th Oct 2012 at 04:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Columbia is a better plane than the Cirrus but does not achieve anything like the sales figure of the Cirrus.
They would be well advised to follow suit and offer a built in chute system!
I am sure I read that fatalities in Cirrus occur where the chute is not pulled so it may well be the case that pilots are advised to use the chute in most circumstances and that 007 is right in his thinking?i do think the concept of a parachute lowering the complete aircraft and its occupants to the ground is a breakthrough safety advancement and evidence seems to suggest that the system is reliable.
It would be interesting to compare deaths in cirrus aircraft to conventional aircraft and analyse the nature of the accidents where a chute pull would have reduced those death rates as then there may emerge a clearer pull or no pull policy
It would also be interesting to know of the deployed aircraft how many have been repaired and brought back into service rather than being totalled?
Pace
They would be well advised to follow suit and offer a built in chute system!
I am sure I read that fatalities in Cirrus occur where the chute is not pulled so it may well be the case that pilots are advised to use the chute in most circumstances and that 007 is right in his thinking?i do think the concept of a parachute lowering the complete aircraft and its occupants to the ground is a breakthrough safety advancement and evidence seems to suggest that the system is reliable.
It would be interesting to compare deaths in cirrus aircraft to conventional aircraft and analyse the nature of the accidents where a chute pull would have reduced those death rates as then there may emerge a clearer pull or no pull policy
It would also be interesting to know of the deployed aircraft how many have been repaired and brought back into service rather than being totalled?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Oct 2012 at 06:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totaly wrong assesment !
At the start of this thead Mad Jock says that the airframe is a write off, I totaly disagree, there is nothing on that video that would indicate that the aircraft could not be repaired.
The post above asks about the ability of composite repairs to withstand the stress of a parachute deployment, that is simple to answer, a properly carried out composite repair will react in exactly the same way as a new aircraft.
Pace
I know of one aircraft this side of the pond that had a chute deployment....I was flying it a few weeks back!
The post above asks about the ability of composite repairs to withstand the stress of a parachute deployment, that is simple to answer, a properly carried out composite repair will react in exactly the same way as a new aircraft.
Pace
I know of one aircraft this side of the pond that had a chute deployment....I was flying it a few weeks back!
Last edited by A and C; 12th Oct 2012 at 08:19.