Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is that pilots fly within their own and the aircraft limits!
Sadly not everyone is a natural instrument pilot or not current! Some slip through the net and get ratings they maybe should not have!
The way this pilot went straight for the chute makes me suspicious that he knew the trip maybe out of his depth and the chute was indeed part of his game plan!
A get out of prison for free card if he could not handle things!
Yes the passenger received serious injuries in the chuted descent.
The chute is a major advancement if used correctly! Used to make up for bad flying skills worries me! It's not more and more gadgets to compensate for bad pilots which is the answer!
The chute is not an answer to all ills as some are suggesting but it is another excellent option!
Pilots have choices the more options the more choices!
More choices more options to make the wrong choice!
It is only training and experience which will help making the right choice!
For me the chute and when to use it has not been properly thought out!
Pace
Sadly not everyone is a natural instrument pilot or not current! Some slip through the net and get ratings they maybe should not have!
The way this pilot went straight for the chute makes me suspicious that he knew the trip maybe out of his depth and the chute was indeed part of his game plan!
A get out of prison for free card if he could not handle things!
Yes the passenger received serious injuries in the chuted descent.
The chute is a major advancement if used correctly! Used to make up for bad flying skills worries me! It's not more and more gadgets to compensate for bad pilots which is the answer!
The chute is not an answer to all ills as some are suggesting but it is another excellent option!
Pilots have choices the more options the more choices!
More choices more options to make the wrong choice!
It is only training and experience which will help making the right choice!
For me the chute and when to use it has not been properly thought out!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Oct 2012 at 09:34.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been true since the dawn of aviation, but failure to comply with this remains the underlying cause of a great many accidents and incidents.
Is the answer better training, or designing aircraft with greater 'abuse-resistance"?
How much capability should we build into the aircraft to mitigate the risk? If we give pilots safer aircraft, will they fly them more recklessly? If the manufacturers see fit to provide a BRS, then why not also fit the autopilot with an emergency "Land Me" button?
My own view is that more attention needs to be given in basic training to the dangers of "pushing the boundaries". This IMO needs instructors with real experience & cannot properly be taught by airline wannabees whose own handling skills probably wouldn't be sufficient to safely allow students to experience just how out of control it's possible to get & still recover.
I was extremely fortunate in having several instructors with 20,000 hrs+ and any attempt at my saying "You have control" if I got out of my depth would be met with folded arms and the comment "you got into this, now you fly out of it". Many of those early lessons were taken on days when the rest of the school was grounded by the weather & in consequence when the day came to venture forth on my own I was better prepared for real-world conditions. It didn't stop me making the same damn fool mistakes, but it did ensure that they were survivable.
.
Is the answer better training, or designing aircraft with greater 'abuse-resistance"?
How much capability should we build into the aircraft to mitigate the risk? If we give pilots safer aircraft, will they fly them more recklessly? If the manufacturers see fit to provide a BRS, then why not also fit the autopilot with an emergency "Land Me" button?
My own view is that more attention needs to be given in basic training to the dangers of "pushing the boundaries". This IMO needs instructors with real experience & cannot properly be taught by airline wannabees whose own handling skills probably wouldn't be sufficient to safely allow students to experience just how out of control it's possible to get & still recover.
I was extremely fortunate in having several instructors with 20,000 hrs+ and any attempt at my saying "You have control" if I got out of my depth would be met with folded arms and the comment "you got into this, now you fly out of it". Many of those early lessons were taken on days when the rest of the school was grounded by the weather & in consequence when the day came to venture forth on my own I was better prepared for real-world conditions. It didn't stop me making the same damn fool mistakes, but it did ensure that they were survivable.
.
Last edited by Sillert,V.I.; 18th Oct 2012 at 10:26.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire
Totally agree and that is how you should be taught!
I also agree with safety devices and your point about pilots still flying out of limits! There is nothing more tragic than pilots getting killed. I have lost seven friends some very experienced so the chute is a major breakthrough!
I feel a study should be made on the chute looking at all scenarios and an official set of guidelines created in its use!
From
That a course could be setup so that pilots can quickly interpret whether to use the chute and make a speedy decision on using the chute or not !
Pace
Totally agree and that is how you should be taught!
I also agree with safety devices and your point about pilots still flying out of limits! There is nothing more tragic than pilots getting killed. I have lost seven friends some very experienced so the chute is a major breakthrough!
I feel a study should be made on the chute looking at all scenarios and an official set of guidelines created in its use!
From
That a course could be setup so that pilots can quickly interpret whether to use the chute and make a speedy decision on using the chute or not !
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You do seem to have become overly fixated on the chute.
Most accidents are caused because the pilot hasn't thought things through, was not current, was poorly trained or a combination of all three.
If you consider your earlier comments the accident was caused because the pilot was incapable of flying a simple instrument approach - period. That failure had nothing to do with the chute. OK we can debate whether he would have attempted the approach without the chute but I suspect we would end up disagreeing. The accident reports are littered with pilots who attempt approaches no different from this and came to grief and did not have chutes. I just find it difficult to conceive in the vast majority of cases anyone would go into a situation because of the chute. Most Cirrus pilots are owners, insurance aside they probably have a lot of pride in their aircraft, and they really dont want to end up in the mud somewhere with an involved insurance claim on their hands. I think this pilot thought he could handle the approach - period. He didn't expect a missed and when it was called as happens time and time again it went badly wrong. In an article in Flyer this month they say flying a missed approach is one of the most difficult things a pilot does and one of the most common causes of grief. Your currency and experience makes a missed a non event but have you forgotten for some that is the last thing it is?
No I really believe that in the vast majority of the incidents we have seen the pilot was just as capable of getting himself into the situation with or without the chute and would have done so not because he had a chute but because of poor planning, poor training, a lack of currency and possibly because of a relatively higher performance aircraft that could take him to the incident a bit quicker that his brain could keep up with. If that were not true why would we see exactly the same accidents occurring with the same frequency across the GA fleet? As always there will be exceptions to the rule and there will always be the one that takes on a trip knowing the risks are high and only because he believes he has the get out of jail card. Strangely I am guilty. I think three times about flying a single at night these days but maybe only once if it had a chute.
You do seem to have become overly fixated on the chute.
Most accidents are caused because the pilot hasn't thought things through, was not current, was poorly trained or a combination of all three.
If you consider your earlier comments the accident was caused because the pilot was incapable of flying a simple instrument approach - period. That failure had nothing to do with the chute. OK we can debate whether he would have attempted the approach without the chute but I suspect we would end up disagreeing. The accident reports are littered with pilots who attempt approaches no different from this and came to grief and did not have chutes. I just find it difficult to conceive in the vast majority of cases anyone would go into a situation because of the chute. Most Cirrus pilots are owners, insurance aside they probably have a lot of pride in their aircraft, and they really dont want to end up in the mud somewhere with an involved insurance claim on their hands. I think this pilot thought he could handle the approach - period. He didn't expect a missed and when it was called as happens time and time again it went badly wrong. In an article in Flyer this month they say flying a missed approach is one of the most difficult things a pilot does and one of the most common causes of grief. Your currency and experience makes a missed a non event but have you forgotten for some that is the last thing it is?
No I really believe that in the vast majority of the incidents we have seen the pilot was just as capable of getting himself into the situation with or without the chute and would have done so not because he had a chute but because of poor planning, poor training, a lack of currency and possibly because of a relatively higher performance aircraft that could take him to the incident a bit quicker that his brain could keep up with. If that were not true why would we see exactly the same accidents occurring with the same frequency across the GA fleet? As always there will be exceptions to the rule and there will always be the one that takes on a trip knowing the risks are high and only because he believes he has the get out of jail card. Strangely I am guilty. I think three times about flying a single at night these days but maybe only once if it had a chute.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
But this is not the issue with me! The chute is a wonderful addition to safety! I tend to feel it will lure pilots to fly in conditions they normally would not be happy in but that's another argument!
The argument has developed over when and under what circumstances the chute should be used.
One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .
Pace
But this is not the issue with me! The chute is a wonderful addition to safety! I tend to feel it will lure pilots to fly in conditions they normally would not be happy in but that's another argument!
The argument has developed over when and under what circumstances the chute should be used.
One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble experience, most multi-engine jet fliers are no longer happy crossing the channel in a SEP. Which leads me to think that as you progress in aviation, your limits raise up. It is certainly true of me, I used to fly dodgey old PA28's and C172 over the mountains of california at night. Nowadays I use a twin.
But I would take something like a Cirrus and then if the donk failed and I pulled the chute, you could discuss on here how it pushed me to make a bad decision. Had I been in the PA28 all you'd be saying is "lets wait for the AAIB report" and "My condolences" etc. and had I been in the Twin you wouldn't be any the wiser. This leads me to believe that all the parachute does (apart from save lives) is draw attention to the fact that someone survived.
But I would take something like a Cirrus and then if the donk failed and I pulled the chute, you could discuss on here how it pushed me to make a bad decision. Had I been in the PA28 all you'd be saying is "lets wait for the AAIB report" and "My condolences" etc. and had I been in the Twin you wouldn't be any the wiser. This leads me to believe that all the parachute does (apart from save lives) is draw attention to the fact that someone survived.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One argument is to use it for every engine failure! That argument maybe correct but a proper study needs to be made and more solid guidance given .
You talk about a proper study - but how do you think this could be conducted. The cost and risk of such a study would be enormous and couldn't be funded by Cirrus. Its not a lot different from saying there should be far more studies into the crash survivability of CATs. You can do all the simulations in the world (which is in itself vastly costly) but just as with cars you "need" to crash a lot into brick walls on bespoke rigs. Only the big manufacturers can afford to do that, and that incurs vast cost, so one can only imagine the cost of such a study for aircraft.
Proper studies are a great idea but no one is going to pay the bill - no one can afford to pay the bill.
I suggested earlier why I feel it is so difficult for Cirrus to even give "proper" guidance. Proper guidance must be based on some form of quantitative study and the study would need to stand up in court to scrutiny - catch 22, you are back to my earlier point, no one can afford to do the study.
So Cirrus were brave to incorporate a chute, and they seem to have been rewarded by pretty good evidence that landings under the chute in a range of conditions have so far proved reasonably safe. The evidence will grow as there are more deployments and at some point a more complete picture will evolve of the pros and cons. Some would argue the picture is already taking shape.
As others have said this is but a fraction of the debate on COPA; most Cirrus pilots (not all) are members and most Cirrus pilots take their flying very seriously. There is no shortage of highly qualified analysis albeit ultimately for those sufficiently interested you can only read the analysis and draw your own conclusions.
So to sum up I dont disagree with you and I doubt many would - but you wish for something you almost certainly cant have and therefore the argument becomes academic.
Yes we agree the chute warrants more study, but its not going to happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we agree the chute warrants more study, but its not going to happen.
For more info about the company see BRS Aviation | Home
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
You made a statement that you would use the chute as a SOP for all cases of engine failure! You may be right you maybe wrong!
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?
You mention above a microlight pilot deploying his chute at 400 feet. Great it worked on a microlight. Do the same on a Cirrus and you will freefall and kill yourself with at best a partially deployed chute.
Most engine failures occur just after take off when the engine is most stressed and a cirrus pilot conditioned to pull the chute might kill himself.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.
I brought up a possible problem of an engine failure flying in strong winds 30 to 50 kts typical of winter winds I have flown singles in.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.
You also have to consider not only your own life but those below you! One day some child or children will be killed under a descending Cirrus! Okay if the aircraft is unflyable you have no choice but to descend into a heavily built up area but to take the chute in a flyable aircraft over a built up area is very questionable.
We have a duty to those below too!
That is why a say to you that direction is needed and that can only come from considered knowledge and not some home made plan of action.
The possible consequences need discussion.
I also ask you to look at the fatalities in Cirrus! You mention engine failure and forced landings! How many are killed in forced landings where the pilot maintains flying speed?
From the stats I remember very few!
Ok pilots stall in but there is no excuse to do so only bad piloting and training.
What is a safe height for chute deployment? Is it 1000 feet or higher as I am pretty sure that will vary.
Please do not take this as a dig at you as you have brought up a valid discussion topic and as I said you maybe right to deploy on engine failure or you maybe wrong?
None of us know and we need to!
Why do you think Cirrus are happy to detail procedures for a forced landing and recommend a forced landing with a caveat of maybe consider the chute if a forced landing is not advisable!
Because a forced landing is a normal procedure in your training syllabus authorized by the CAA the chute is a relatively unknown factor authorized by no one!
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)
Pace
You made a statement that you would use the chute as a SOP for all cases of engine failure! You may be right you maybe wrong!
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?
You mention above a microlight pilot deploying his chute at 400 feet. Great it worked on a microlight. Do the same on a Cirrus and you will freefall and kill yourself with at best a partially deployed chute.
Most engine failures occur just after take off when the engine is most stressed and a cirrus pilot conditioned to pull the chute might kill himself.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.
I brought up a possible problem of an engine failure flying in strong winds 30 to 50 kts typical of winter winds I have flown singles in.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.
You also have to consider not only your own life but those below you! One day some child or children will be killed under a descending Cirrus! Okay if the aircraft is unflyable you have no choice but to descend into a heavily built up area but to take the chute in a flyable aircraft over a built up area is very questionable.
We have a duty to those below too!
That is why a say to you that direction is needed and that can only come from considered knowledge and not some home made plan of action.
The possible consequences need discussion.
I also ask you to look at the fatalities in Cirrus! You mention engine failure and forced landings! How many are killed in forced landings where the pilot maintains flying speed?
From the stats I remember very few!
Ok pilots stall in but there is no excuse to do so only bad piloting and training.
What is a safe height for chute deployment? Is it 1000 feet or higher as I am pretty sure that will vary.
Please do not take this as a dig at you as you have brought up a valid discussion topic and as I said you maybe right to deploy on engine failure or you maybe wrong?
None of us know and we need to!
Why do you think Cirrus are happy to detail procedures for a forced landing and recommend a forced landing with a caveat of maybe consider the chute if a forced landing is not advisable!
Because a forced landing is a normal procedure in your training syllabus authorized by the CAA the chute is a relatively unknown factor authorized by no one!
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Oct 2012 at 16:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, a lot of questions that I will do my best to answer from my personal present stance.
Not really released data,I have come to this conclusion in the last few years as a personal decision, after making my own mind by:
a) reviewing 100% of Cirrus Fatal's
b) listening to the Pro & Con answers on COPA
c) Being strongly influenced by the opinions of fellow COPA member and volunteer input of a chap called Rick Beech. Here is his presentation on the matter
(long but worth it)
Agreed, 400ft would be very uncertain territory in a Cirrus, This Guy was Boris Popov the inventor of BRS which has now sold 30,000 units worlwide and 5000+ to Cirrus, not a bad inventor.... He was the Mocrolight Pilot.
Agreed EFATO is a high risk time, current thinking for formal Cirrus training is below 500ft aim for whatever ahead, above 500ft use the Chute, I personally as do many others as part of take off SOP at 500ft say out loud "Flaps & Caps" which I raise the flaps and then put my hand right on the CAPS handle to remind me it is active and double check the Pin out.
However most evidence suggests 1000ft is the known altitude for it to work very well, below that less certain in terms of full inflation.
Sure I think high winds of this strength need further consideration (by me) However I can not remember in the last few years choosing to fly when ground speed winds this high, I do accept if I do this is an important factor that i need to think about more and it would seem logical that it could increase CAPS risk and reduce landing speed but also may make it trickier to end up where you hope in a glide.
Agreed, 1st choice enough altitude to glide clear, but lets say it is approach like the guy in Alabama, I would rather have my kids in a school with a Cirrus randomly landing on it under CAPS descent than I would a Cirrus steaming in at anywhere from 70 to 200 knots out of control with likely hood of an impact fire. the other point of CAPS over any area is when the Rocket is activated there is a significant bang which I am reasonably sure people would look up to see what it was.
I am not sure there will be clear direction for the reasons Fuji has stated, I think it is down to PIC to use what ever they consider is the best option available to them based on their training & personal experience.
Forced landings due to straight forward engine failure are very rare, most are not a forced landing but Pilot Error and loss of control so in actual fact our debate has very little chance of happening with the millions of hours on the Cirrus fleet. I do agree if flying to the ground speed is critical and looking at fatality's in general on all types it seems plenty fail to do this.
Maybe but for average PPL's harder to stay current and on top of the game, equally anyone can get distracted, over whelmed, stressed when things are going wrong.
Most agree 1000ft is the minimum
Pace far from it being a Dig I welcome opposing views to question my own thinking, I have taken a few digs and GEP for example was IMHO condescending and quite sarcastic but that is fine and adds to the rich tapestry and entertainment value of pprune. However I am certain there will be no black and white answer if anyone is right or wrong.
Dont know, to fit in with traditional training maybe, liability issue's perhaps.
When you say authorized by no one, surely the FAA are ok with this having approved various aircraft with it as an option.
E&OE
You made a statement that you would use the chute as a SOP for all cases of engine failure! You may be right you maybe wrong!
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?
I have heard this attitude from other quarters so you are not alone but on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it through some study or released data?
a) reviewing 100% of Cirrus Fatal's
b) listening to the Pro & Con answers on COPA
c) Being strongly influenced by the opinions of fellow COPA member and volunteer input of a chap called Rick Beech. Here is his presentation on the matter
You mention above a microlight pilot deploying his chute at 400 feet. Great it worked on a microlight. Do the same on a Cirrus and you will freefall and kill yourself with at best a partially deployed chute.
Most engine failures occur just after take off when the engine is most stressed and a cirrus pilot conditioned to pull the chute might kill himself.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.
How do you work out a safe altitude to pull the chute as it will vary on a number of aircraft conditions.
However most evidence suggests 1000ft is the known altitude for it to work very well, below that less certain in terms of full inflation.
I brought up a possible problem of an engine failure flying in strong winds 30 to 50 kts typical of winter winds I have flown singles in.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.
An into wind landing will mean a very slow groundspeed in a single and a far better option than pulling the chute and not only being a victim to a high descent rate under the chute but high horizontal speed! You only have to look at the 25kt (30mph) car impact damage to see the results.
You also have to consider not only your own life but those below you! One day some child or children will be killed under a descending Cirrus! Okay if the aircraft is unflyable you have no choice but to descend into a heavily built up area but to take the chute in a flyable aircraft over a built up area is very questionable.
We have a duty to those below too!
We have a duty to those below too!
That is why a say to you that direction is needed and that can only come from considered knowledge and not some home made plan of action.
The possible consequences need discussion.
The possible consequences need discussion.
I also ask you to look at the fatalities in Cirrus! You mention engine failure and forced landings! How many are killed in forced landings where the pilot maintains flying speed?
From the stats I remember very few!
From the stats I remember very few!
Ok pilots stall in but there is no excuse to do so only bad piloting and training.
What is a safe height for chute deployment? Is it 1000 feet or higher as I am pretty sure that will vary.
Please do not take this as a dig at you as you have brought up a valid discussion topic and as I said you maybe right to deploy on engine failure or you maybe wrong?
None of us know and we need to!
None of us know and we need to!
Why do you think Cirrus are happy to detail procedures for a forced landing and recommend a forced landing with a caveat of maybe consider the chute if a forced landing is not advisable!
Because a forced landing is a normal procedure in your training syllabus authorized by the CAA the chute is a relatively unknown factor authorized by no one!
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)
With the forced landing Cirrus can pass the buck with the chute they cannot (Yet)
E&OE
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chute is authorized by no one but it is used under the the commanders responsabiltity to do anything he sees fit to assure the safety of persons both in the air and on the ground in an emergency situation.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C Thank you for the info.
I have 200hrs and 7 hours into a Cirrus conversion. They certainly tick all the boxes for me.
I can see where Pace is coming from within the debate, but for sure 007helicopter is on the money
I have 200hrs and 7 hours into a Cirrus conversion. They certainly tick all the boxes for me.
I can see where Pace is coming from within the debate, but for sure 007helicopter is on the money
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007 and Fuji
Having watched the Caps pull video it is obvious that pulling the chute saves lives and a failure to do so looses lives.
So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.
Sadly the video does not paint a good picture of the pilots, their abilities or training! Something is wrong somewhere.
There are far to many flying into icing condition accidents, far too many loss of control in clouds but accepting that there are pilots in these incidents flying out of their ability margins pulling the chute is a much better option than the loss of lives.
Regarding engine failures again with such a mixed bag of pilot ability the chute would appear to be the best option.
But what is the message? Yes its go for the chute but it is a needed replacement for a lack of piloting skills which comes over in that video time after time rather than as a back up for those skills
Pace
Having watched the Caps pull video it is obvious that pulling the chute saves lives and a failure to do so looses lives.
So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.
Sadly the video does not paint a good picture of the pilots, their abilities or training! Something is wrong somewhere.
There are far to many flying into icing condition accidents, far too many loss of control in clouds but accepting that there are pilots in these incidents flying out of their ability margins pulling the chute is a much better option than the loss of lives.
Regarding engine failures again with such a mixed bag of pilot ability the chute would appear to be the best option.
But what is the message? Yes its go for the chute but it is a needed replacement for a lack of piloting skills which comes over in that video time after time rather than as a back up for those skills
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Oct 2012 at 12:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having watched the Caps pull video it is obvious that pulling the chute saves lives and a failure to do so looses lives.
So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.
So I will shift my stance again to agree with you both.
What is tragic is when you here of Fatal's and the CAPS locking pin is still in the lever to lock it, worse still one padlocked in a different type of aircraft.
In the Cirrus community not all believe in the value of CAPS or pay it lip service, many instructors do not train for CAPS situations so there is still a way to go with getting the message out which is why I believe these discussions are of value.
There are far to many flying into icing condition accidents, far too many loss of control in clouds but accepting that there are pilots in these incidents flying out of their ability margins pulling the chute is a much better option than the loss of lives.
(Very broad brush personal opinion - total number of fatals corrected)
Last edited by 007helicopter; 19th Oct 2012 at 18:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
97 fatal crashes out of 5000 airframes is roughly 1 in 50 destroyed which would be an atrocious record are you sure you have those numbers right?
Pace
97 fatal crashes out of 5000 airframes is roughly 1 in 50 destroyed which would be an atrocious record are you sure you have those numbers right?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Oct 2012 at 14:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrected to 94 fatal's
I believe equals something like 1.8 fatal's per 100,000 hours and this is pretty much the GA average.
I believe equals something like 1.8 fatal's per 100,000 hours and this is pretty much the GA average.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 19th Oct 2012 at 18:23.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1,8 per million seems very low does anyone have the SEP GA per million hours figure and the cirrus per million hours as that would be an interesting comparison ?
Pace
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly and on the plus side (touch wood) I believe no Cirrus fatal's yet on UK soil, I believe well over 100+ Cirrus in the UK
Last edited by 007helicopter; 19th Oct 2012 at 19:46.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, that's per 100 thousand hours not million.
007 thinking about the engine failure scenario 1000 feet agl should be the chute decision height!
The problem with a forced landing is having elected to force land its likely to be much lower before the pilot realizes its all going pear shaped ie probably in the last few hundred feet.
From that I can understand your SOP for chute use in an engine failure! as that decision needs to be made early!
Having said that I am pretty sure fatalities in a controlled forced landing where flight is maintained are very very low!
Fatalities occur where glides are stretched and the aircraft stalls.
Stalling an aircraft is totally in the hands of the pilot and an education thing! far better to have a controlled crash in a flying aircraft than a stall spin.
Bring in a headwind and a forced landing becomes a better and better option than a chute pull where the pilot has little or no control over the descent and landing spot or his horizontal speed.
An engine failure over inhospitable terrain or built up areas where a forced landing would be inadvisable would be a no brainer in using the chute but that descision needs to be made at 1000 feet agl and stuck too!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Oct 2012 at 20:22.