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

[englishal]

Regarding stats...If you search the AAIB from 1st jan until now, you will see than in the UK alone there have been 7 accidents involving Cessna SEPs. Does this mean that the Cessna is a more dangerous single?

There have been 10 involving Piper SEPs and so by this deduction I can safely assume that a Piper SEP is more dangerous than a Cessna SEP ? By contrast there have been no Cirrus accidents at all!

Just showing how statistics and peoples' perception of them can be as meaningless as you want them to be which is why I don't believe the hype about the Cirrus. To have meaningful stats you'd have to break it down to "per flight hour" and by "type of flight".

[maxred]

As stated I would not be comfortable flying cross country at night in a single piston.

Many times in the past I have flown singles in 30 to 50 kt winds.

PACE - I stated earlier that your posts confuse me. You asked me to elaborate. I could have lifted many posts from the Irish Sea crossing thread, regarding you not wanting to fly single engine pistons. Ever!!!!

You are now stating that Cirrus have a wishy washy approach to chute installation, and no SOP to deal with the situation.

You now state that your view is that the chute/safety devices will lure pilots into a false sense of security heaven. This differs from some of your original comments.

I have not flown a Cirrus, therefore am unqualified to comment type specific. I have however, flown many fast complex twins and singles. Over sea, over mountains, over flat land. If I had a chute, a new glass cockpit, linked to autopilot, with all the latest technology, I would go and get trained fully on the systems and their use. You would also, as would the majority. However, many would not, many would think, this lot (new gizmos) will get me out of anything. The accident stats look to confirm this. This is the basis of the discussion. The American Bonanza Society recognised this with the Baron and Bonanza models, and set up the BPPP. This is a training proficiency programme, which if completed can give insurance discounts, and all in all should make for a better flying experience, with more experienced and knowledgeable pilots on type.

Perhaps Cirrus, in line with Cirrus owners should consider this. They may already have such a programme. The stats however are worrisome on Cirrus incidents, linked to IFR flight, and this can only be attributed to a training deficiency, either instruments, false sense of security, lack of systems knowledge, but it is a fundamental lack of training on type.

[Rory Dixon]

BPF, you are spot on. I guess, I have not written may point in the best possible manner. What I wanted to say is, that if you compare the Cirrus to other airplanes used in an identical manner, there is no reason (from the statistics) to believe, that the Cirrus is worse with regard to safety.
You are absolutely right: to compare accident statistics you have to riskadjust them, otherwise they are meningless.

[Rory Dixon]

maxred:

Perhaps Cirrus, in line with Cirrus owners should consider this. They may already have such a programme

This program exists and I would highly recommend that to every person flying a Cirrus, not just the owners.

The stats however are worrisome on Cirrus incidents, linked to IFR flight, and this can only be attributed to a training deficiency, either instruments, false sense of security, lack of systems knowledge, but it is a fundamental lack of training on type

This is endeed worrisome, but it is NOT a feature of the Cirrus. The stats are pretty much identical to other high-performance singles (e.g. Barron), as outlined above, therefore there is a training issue in GA.

[maxred]

This is endeed worrisome, but it is NOT a feature of the Cirrus. The stats are pretty much identical to other high-performance singles (e.g. Barron), as outlined above, therefore there is a training issue in GA.

Point taken and I agree

[Rory Dixon]

Pace:

The whole approach to the chute comes over as wishy washy and amateurish rather than a properly researched and directed SOP

This is your impression, but I do have to tell you this is due to a lack of information on your side.
If I recall right, you were thinking about chartering a Cirrus. Do yourself a favor. Invest $65 and buy yourself a one year membership in COPA, the Cirrus owner and pilot association. It will be the most cost effective investment you ever did in aviation.
Reserve yourself (at least) two weekends for reading the vast amount of information available and then start asking your questions to the knowledgeable people there. You will very soon see that your statement above is just not true. Joining COPA will have impact on the safety of your Cirrus flying. COPA members have a much lower number of accidents than non-COPA Cirrus pilots.

[Pace]

I could have lifted many posts from the Irish Sea crossing thread, regarding you not wanting to fly single engine pistons. Ever!!!!

Max Red

Please feel free as you are talking absolute rubbish so go reading and cut and paste.
Please be accurate and back up what you say not what you imagine or want to read in my posts.
I have 3000 hours in piston twins and around 900 in singles crossing large expanses of water IN SINGLES was a risk I was prepared to take and DID take but nevertheless a risk.

Pace

[Pace]

Rory

When we have one pilot here who claims to have done the COPA course and states he will pull the chute for every single engine failure regardless ??? That for me is worrying!

I also find it worrying that the manufacturer treats the whole chute decision going into absolute detail on advice for a forced landing but when it comes to the chute all they can say is that the pilot may CONSIDER the use of the chute if a forced landing is not advisable. wow!!



Pace

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.

So I stand by every word I have said

[007helicopter]

When we have one pilot here who claims to have done the COPA course and states he will pull the chute for every single engine failure regardless ??? That for me is worrying!

Pace we are likely never going to agree on this which is fine but as previously stated my decision has been arrived at over a period of years and I am sticking with it.

Commercial Air Taxi companies in the USA have adopted the same principal for their SOP so there must be some mileage in it but everyone is free to do what they want.

The sad thing is there are to many deaths where the Pilot could have saved their lives and that of PAX if they had pulled the chute and not attempted an off airport landing.

One valid point you have raised is the outcome of CAPS in high winds and this is an area which I need to consider more, not only in terms of lateral speed impacting a solid object on the ground but I believe in very high winds (not sure of the number) the aircraft could be dragged along the ground by the chute, I need to consider this more.

I also find it worrying that the manufacturer treats the whole chute decision going into absolute detail on advice for a forced landing but when it comes to the chute all they can say is that the pilot may CONSIDER the use of the chute if a forced landing is not advisable. wow!!

Pace that is simply not true, the POH has a section on CAPS (from memory section 10) with much more detail, I am not justifying what Cirrus do or don't say in there POH just pointing out I think your statement is totally misleading.

[Pace]

007

I am only using your interpretation of when to use the chute as an example and trying to have a discussion on possible pitfalls with that policy.So please do not take it personally as I know others hold your view!

In the past and present individual chutes are used to abandon an unflyable aircraft or one where the pilot has irretrievably lost control hence glider pilots and aerobatic pilots carry chutes!

This is a different concept to the normal use of a chute as now the arguement is to use the chute with a perfectly flyable aircraft!

I do not know? You maybe right but surely this new concept needs and deserves discussion without such sensitive protectionism at anyone who dares question the sensibility or possible pitfalls in such use of a chute.

Normally if anything major goes wrong with the jet I fly it is straight to the emergency checklist or the flight manual and then to follow the manufacturers procedures for dealing with it!

Not so in this case.

Nowhere does the manufacturer state engine failure pull the chute or even worse pull the chute regardless of the situation.

I am sold on the Cirrus and the OPTION of a chute I am not convinced of its use other than for a true unflyable emergency so convince me and as a matter of fact convince the manufacturer too.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

I tell all my students that when the engine fails the insurance company just bought the plane. Under pretty much every circumstance IMO, the only advantage of doing a conventional forced approach in a Cirrus is there will be a possibility that the airplane will not be damaged. If the chute is used the airplane will definitely be damaged and possibly written off but at a much higher probability of no or low injuries. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I find even the 30kt wind example unpersuasive as yes if you were to touch down exactly into the wind you would in the best case scenario have a forward speed of around 35kts, But you have to first make it to a piece of flat ground. It is very easy to screw up a forced approach in such high winds with a resultant touch down short of the desired point and probably involving hitting something hard at flying speed and still in the air. Those are the killer accidents.

[Pace]

BPF

Fine ! you maybe right but then get this accepted as standard procedure by the manufacturer as well as the CAA for a change in training procedures in this aircraft. That is what I am banging on about!
You do not know neither do I !!! We both hold opinions but that is all they are opinions

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Pace

...I am not convinced of its use other than for a true unflyable emergency...

I am not convinced either & the idea of voluntarily relinquishing control of a flyable aircraft does not sit comfortably with me.

At the same time I am mindful that the statistics for off-airport landings following engine failure in a SEP are not comforting. From memory I believe about 30% of such incidents as are reported result in injury or worse to the aircraft occupants (though that may be skewed as some successful off-airport landings may not be reported).

I still remember practising forced landings with my first instructor & was in awe of his ability to slip the aircraft down to within inches of the ground & then with pinpoint accuracy halt the descent, add just enough power to fly in ground effect to warm the engine & then climb away. A few weeks later, faced with a real engine failure whilst flying solo, that same instructor was killed after hitting power wires on the final approach (see G-BKDZ).

No matter how skilled the pilot, there is an element of unavoidable risk in off-airport landings which may be greater than we'd like to think and, in spite of my natural disinclination to knowingly surrender control of a flyable aircraft, pulling the 'chute may statistically offer a better chance of survival following engine failure, even for the highly experienced. This can't just be dismissed & is worthy of serious debate.

However, this thread started after a 'chute pull in a perfectly functioning aircraft because the pilot lacked the skill and/or confidence to continue to fly it. This IMO is also worth exploring further & to me highlights the mismatch between current PPL/IR training (this pilot held a current IR AIUI) & the capabilities of a TAA such as the Cirrus.

[mad_jock]

However, this thread started after a 'chute pull in a perfectly functioning aircraft because the pilot lacked the skill and/or confidence to continue to fly it.

Thats my view on it as well.

The chute meaning that they can tell everyone what a plonker they were is nice and more than likely saves more money to the manufacture than not having to do extensive tests to prove that it wasn't a design fault.

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Pace

...but then get this accepted as standard procedure by the manufacturer as well as the CAA for a change in training procedures in this aircraft. ...

This is unlikely to happen, simply because of the product liability issue. So long as the pilot is still flying the aircraft, any undesirable outcome can be put down to "pilot error". Pulling the 'chute is essentially turning to the manufacturer & saying "you have control" - if the manufacturer makes it a formal recommendation in the POH, the lawyers will have a field day if the worst happens.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

Yes absolutely...... but they did. Do you really think Death is the appropriate penalty for their carelessness ?

[007helicopter]

I still remember practising forced landings with my first instructor & was in awe of his ability to slip the aircraft down to within inches of the ground & then with pinpoint accuracy halt the descent, add just enough power to fly in ground effect to warm the engine & then climb away. A few weeks later, faced with a real engine failure whilst flying solo, that same instructor was killed after hitting power wires on the final approach (see G-BKDZ).

BTW No offense taken from anybody and it is a very useful debate, the last few posts for me serve well to demonstrate the polar opinions which are most hard to change.

The quote above sums up in the real world how dangerous for all forced landings are, maybe on average 80% work, not great odds to me.

It also reminded me of earlier this year I decided to do some PFL's from 2000ft above Rochester airport and dead stick landings, it was fairly calm, I was fresh, I knew it was coming etc. The first one I may have made across the fence but was dangerously short, so aborted at 300ft, the second two were spot on greaser landings.

It only served to convince me more that for me, the chute is right option, I am just not good enough to ensure the right landing spot, reasonable surface, no obstructions etc when the heat is on, I may be tried, I will certainly be highly stressed and adrenalin will be pumping.

I have no desire to fly all the way to the scene of the accident.

I also think trying to change Cirrus / CAA / FAA advice on this will likely never happen, it is just for me an informed personal choice based on my view of the world.

[007helicopter]

But fundamentally there is a pilot that shouldn;t have got themselves into that position in the first place.

I don't think there is much argument on this point but in all our flying history's there for the grace of god go you or I.

We have all made mistakes, some stupid, some down to ignorance, but we are all here to now use those mistakes to learn and hopefully not do it again.

This guy lost control, lost altitude and 100% correctly pulled the chute, I do not believe the manufacturer, FAA or Insurance company will argue with or fault that decision.

Neither do I believe they will fault a decision to pull the chute in the event of engine failure over the beautiful South Downs meadows, Beech at Le Touquet or anywhere else.

[englishal]

Regarding the Cirrus, I say again, it is only because we hear about the chute on the news that we discuss it. Yesterday I read an AAIB report of a 206 which just flew into the ground in the Uk a while back (CFIT). You can read all manner of "PA28 - VMC into IMC" type accidents on the AAIB website, people seem to do it every year. Worse than stuffing up an approach is you get some idiot VFR only pilot who decides to press on and then gets themselves into the ****e. Read the sobering accident report of the chap in a PA28 who decided to ditch it in the channel next to a ship after electrical failure. The plane was perfectly flyable, he had enough fuel, he could have saved himself and his aeroplane. Very sad.

My point is that it is not remarkable if a PPL stuffs his aeroplane, but it is remarkable that a pilot saves 4 lives by using a chute to bring his aeroplane down to earth.

[mad_jock]

Do you really think Death is the appropriate penalty for their carelessness ?

No but I would prefer that we cure the base problem and not use an engineering fix to cover up poor training.

I am not actually against the chute as such and those that want to have it I am more than happy they have it.

But this in my view comes down to the age old problem that exercises 1-12 are not being taught properly or being understood.