Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Typo error! That still is very low so would still like the GA SEP figures overall per 100,000 compared to the Cirrus figures per 100,000 hours.
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
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
For me the added factor that makes my SOP is that the Cirrus for example is far worse to contemplate an off airfield landing due to its higher stall speed and therefore landing speed plus the small wheels do not make the prospect very good compared to say a C172 or C182, PA28, Robin etc I think you would have a better chance of survival and putting it in a reasonable field in these types.
So for me I do not want to get to 300 ft and think I have cocked it up with a perfectly good chute stowed away.
If I carry passengers I remind myself even more to not get tempted into a forced landing if the need arises and I hope in the heat of the moment I remember what I preach in good time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
But with the chute you have another option another decision to make?
Take off !!! climbing out 300 feet the engine goes bang. Push the nose over looking for a landing site ahead. Do I pull the chute do I force land ? decisions, decisions, decisions! Remember that is the most likely height and condition to get an engine failure.
Stall speed is irrelevant! Do not stall.Quite simple really!Taking out a hedge will not kill you! Avoiding a brick building or tree no sweat if you have control of the aircraft
As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace
But with the chute you have another option another decision to make?
Take off !!! climbing out 300 feet the engine goes bang. Push the nose over looking for a landing site ahead. Do I pull the chute do I force land ? decisions, decisions, decisions! Remember that is the most likely height and condition to get an engine failure.
Stall speed is irrelevant! Do not stall.Quite simple really!Taking out a hedge will not kill you! Avoiding a brick building or tree no sweat if you have control of the aircraft
As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Oct 2012 at 09:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace I am worried, I am not sure if you are reading my posts !!
300ft EFATO would be a bad time to pull the chute, better see what options are straight ahead and fly it to the ground IMHO and SOP.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace
Cirrus had the advantage of designing from scratch but no mean feat to design an aircraft, bring it to market and sell 1000's, kudos to Alan and Dale Klapmeir who I have had the privilege of meeting, in my opinion they did to GA what Steve Jobs did to phones.
Columbia looks a decent aircraft but sold low 100's where Cirrus sold medium 1000's, you think if they had fitted a BRS and bought it in at a similar price then there could be some healthy competition for Cirrus, in my mind there is Zero serious competition for Cirrus at present.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, why on earth do not more manufacturers fit the BRS Chute, I assume cost to modify the airframe
And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.
I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.
If some talent limited pilots think its worth it crack on and fly with it but don't subject the rest of us to paying for that crap.
My personal risk assement for me is it doesn't reduce my risk to be worth it. In fact a bottle of diet coke on board would increase my flight safety more than a chute.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall speed is irrelevant!
My personal risk assement for me is it doesn't reduce my risk to be worth it. In fact a bottle of diet coke on board would increase my flight safety more than a chute.
If you do mainly day VMC flying over flat terrain then yes the chute is not going to reduce the risk that much but compare two single engine aircraft with the same pilot but now doing regular night flying and/or low ceilings IFR over bad terrain and I think the chute significantly reduces the risk of death.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the bottle of diet coke will win every time.
If the risk factor gets that high I won't be doing it in a SEP.
I used to fly reguarly over the Cairngorms IFR in a single and in the winds which we up north consider normal but some would consider excessive.
Diet coke or a twin please.
Alps I don't fly over in my 2000shp 7 ton or 3300 shp 10 ton tp because its not safe due drift down.
Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.
But yet again I would hope I am resonably comfy in cloud not likely to **** myself when I hear the cloud base is at 700 ft and can actually fly a manual aircraft in trim and a straight line.
If the risk factor gets that high I won't be doing it in a SEP.
I used to fly reguarly over the Cairngorms IFR in a single and in the winds which we up north consider normal but some would consider excessive.
Diet coke or a twin please.
Alps I don't fly over in my 2000shp 7 ton or 3300 shp 10 ton tp because its not safe due drift down.
Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.
But yet again I would hope I am resonably comfy in cloud not likely to **** myself when I hear the cloud base is at 700 ft and can actually fly a manual aircraft in trim and a straight line.
Last edited by mad_jock; 20th Oct 2012 at 23:08.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.
How can you be so sure you would die with a chute?
BB
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I have walked the cairngorms since I was 5 and flown over them for the last 12 years. Doesn'tt matter what the let down is your in the hands of god if you can't see where your going. It can be straight into a cliff, straight into a boulder or a soft splodge into a lump of peat.
Tons of Lochs to ditch into around the edges. But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.
Tons of Lochs to ditch into around the edges. But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.
Last edited by mad_jock; 20th Oct 2012 at 23:30.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall speed is irrelevant!
In that sense stall speed is irrelevant ie DO NOT STALL. There is no excuse witrh a properly trained pilot to stall.
Even if you land faster with a higher stall speed it is very unlikely you will kill yourself taking out a hedge or two
Ask me as I have had one self induced landing into a field 25 years ago.Just through interest does anyone have the forced landing fatality figures which do not include stall/spins.
I remember seeing them somehwere and am sure the fatality in controlled forced landings was very very low. Stalling another matter but thats bad piloting
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.
And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.
And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.
WTF is the bottle of coke thing?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.
Sure there is a much higher risk of failure than flat lands.
Ditching in a Loch, MJ what would you rate your % chances of survival of you and you passengers in that situation?
Last edited by 007helicopter; 21st Oct 2012 at 10:19.
Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.
And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.
I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.
And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.
I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.
If you really don't want to die take more exercise and eat less ice cream.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survival chances a damn sight better than landing on a scree slope or any of the granite flats with there layered rock strata.
And in there in general isn't much wave action in scottish lochs and the wind tends to be channeled along them so into wind you would have next to nothing ground speed and if you could drop it next to the shore and keep your phone dry it would be better than rock landing. Also stalling it into the pine trees is also discussed extensively as another method.
The water temp would be a significant factor but then anywhere in the scottish mountains the crash is only the first thing to survive.
And actually I have never taken pax across the cairngorms unless in a twin. I have taken other pilots who know the risks but not some clueless punter. Same with water crossings to the islands.
But in general in the highlands its not the locals who crash and its not engine failures and the like its usually pilot error and CFIT in IMC.
Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.
And if you had actually walked the hills and flown over them you would know where I was coming from with the likely outcome of a forced landing in them. Those of us that do fly them have our points dotted about that we think we could get in, the rest of it you have to accept your dead unless luck gives you a joker. If your not will to accept that you shouldn't be flying in the area.
We actually have quite a good safety record up north, there is alot more GA flying than you might think. Very active microlight communities and loads of gliding and spam cans as well. I would like to think that the safety record is more to do with the average standard of pilot and there ability to say sod it when the risk factor gets to high. If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.
All the chute does is treat the symptom it doesn't cure the desease.
And the two ltr bottle of diet coke can be used to either replace fluids or remove them thus either stopping dehydration or removing the distraction of bursting for a pee on approach/landing which is where most accidents happen.
you would think so but the pic doesn;t show what the normal relief is. Its either strata granite which has weathured cracks which then rut and you have steps every 2 meters or so. There is also loads of mostly scandanavian grantie lumps which have been dropped out when the ice melted. Then you get the peat areas which again have muliple steps and for ever changing water runs so even the bottom of the U shapes arn't that good.
Unless you have actually walked them it looks pretty decent from the air but lower down its pretty bloody horrible to be honest unless your in a helicopter and they don't land very often and winch instead.
And in there in general isn't much wave action in scottish lochs and the wind tends to be channeled along them so into wind you would have next to nothing ground speed and if you could drop it next to the shore and keep your phone dry it would be better than rock landing. Also stalling it into the pine trees is also discussed extensively as another method.
The water temp would be a significant factor but then anywhere in the scottish mountains the crash is only the first thing to survive.
And actually I have never taken pax across the cairngorms unless in a twin. I have taken other pilots who know the risks but not some clueless punter. Same with water crossings to the islands.
But in general in the highlands its not the locals who crash and its not engine failures and the like its usually pilot error and CFIT in IMC.
Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.
And if you had actually walked the hills and flown over them you would know where I was coming from with the likely outcome of a forced landing in them. Those of us that do fly them have our points dotted about that we think we could get in, the rest of it you have to accept your dead unless luck gives you a joker. If your not will to accept that you shouldn't be flying in the area.
We actually have quite a good safety record up north, there is alot more GA flying than you might think. Very active microlight communities and loads of gliding and spam cans as well. I would like to think that the safety record is more to do with the average standard of pilot and there ability to say sod it when the risk factor gets to high. If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.
All the chute does is treat the symptom it doesn't cure the desease.
And the two ltr bottle of diet coke can be used to either replace fluids or remove them thus either stopping dehydration or removing the distraction of bursting for a pee on approach/landing which is where most accidents happen.
you would think so but the pic doesn;t show what the normal relief is. Its either strata granite which has weathured cracks which then rut and you have steps every 2 meters or so. There is also loads of mostly scandanavian grantie lumps which have been dropped out when the ice melted. Then you get the peat areas which again have muliple steps and for ever changing water runs so even the bottom of the U shapes arn't that good.
Unless you have actually walked them it looks pretty decent from the air but lower down its pretty bloody horrible to be honest unless your in a helicopter and they don't land very often and winch instead.
Last edited by mad_jock; 21st Oct 2012 at 11:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.
Agreed, Approach and landing has also a high risk area where Pilot error accounts for a lot of mistakes but this is an area the chute is least effective, due to low or no altitude.
If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am all for more training personally but the declining industry can not stand higher training costs or more regulation
Now to be honest most of the posters that are very pro the chute on here are the pilots that least need it.
You think about what you are doing, you plan your flights and you hopefully don't let the aircraft go anywhere that you mind hasn't been before 10 mins ago. You also engage other pilots in discussion. You also read accident reports and look at the statistics of where the danger areas are. And realise your not that current and you have limitations. Appart from the fact your license says PPL on it you are thinking and flying like a pro pilot.
The CAA safety meetings in the UK do start down this road but again the pilots that go to them arn't the ones that need it in general.
And as much as myself and a few others argue with your point of view, I for one have alot of respect for your point of view even if I might not agree with the premise of the chute as a get out of jail free card for incompetence.
And just to note for me an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard gives me way way more options that I will use nearly every trip that a handle wouldn't.
Last edited by mad_jock; 21st Oct 2012 at 12:46.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
PPLs are a mixed bag! some are excellent some are awful some lie somewhere inbetween.
Yet aircraft accidents are so final and tragic events for the occupants when something does go wrong.
The Chute does add a lifesaving option that is not in dispute with me!
Seeing the video promoting the chute above I noted that a fair few chute pulls were in icing or loss of control in cloud and failure to recover.
Both are areas these pilots should not have been ie out of the pilot or aircraft limits! Whether they were lacking currency or held ratings maybe they should not hold is irrelevant! They should not have been there.
That makes me question the false security the chute gives luring pilots into situations they cannot handle.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying at night in a SEP but know in my heart that I would feel a lot more comfortable doing so with a chuted aircraft!
So we have to be cautious that the chute does not create the very accidents it saves purely by being there.
The rest other than mid airs or pilot incapacitation should be more to do with training but we are still faced with the fact that the chute is a major addition to safety. If used correctly it is a wonderful thing to have.
Reading an accident like this one it beggars belief that such an incompetent pilot should be flying in those conditions but they do!
The Chute saved the fool from himself and hopefully may make him reappraise himself and learn from it.
As such I support the use of the chute but still have reservations on when it should be used and the fact that you have it should not tempt you into anything you would not do in a conventional aircraft without a get out of jail for free card.
Pace
PPLs are a mixed bag! some are excellent some are awful some lie somewhere inbetween.
Yet aircraft accidents are so final and tragic events for the occupants when something does go wrong.
The Chute does add a lifesaving option that is not in dispute with me!
Seeing the video promoting the chute above I noted that a fair few chute pulls were in icing or loss of control in cloud and failure to recover.
Both are areas these pilots should not have been ie out of the pilot or aircraft limits! Whether they were lacking currency or held ratings maybe they should not hold is irrelevant! They should not have been there.
That makes me question the false security the chute gives luring pilots into situations they cannot handle.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying at night in a SEP but know in my heart that I would feel a lot more comfortable doing so with a chuted aircraft!
So we have to be cautious that the chute does not create the very accidents it saves purely by being there.
The rest other than mid airs or pilot incapacitation should be more to do with training but we are still faced with the fact that the chute is a major addition to safety. If used correctly it is a wonderful thing to have.
Reading an accident like this one it beggars belief that such an incompetent pilot should be flying in those conditions but they do!
The Chute saved the fool from himself and hopefully may make him reappraise himself and learn from it.
As such I support the use of the chute but still have reservations on when it should be used and the fact that you have it should not tempt you into anything you would not do in a conventional aircraft without a get out of jail for free card.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree with any of that.
And pretty much my view.
But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.
And pretty much my view.
But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.
Last edited by mad_jock; 22nd Oct 2012 at 08:31.