The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[mad_jock]

I think there is sound justification for flying with a low cloud base with a chute

And hence the problem and the stigma attached to cirrus pilots.

"The idiot shouldn't have been there in the first place to have to even pull the chute"

The main issue isn't the engine failures in the cruise as far as I can see. It engine failure on departure which the chute is cock all use for.

The issue is the inability to fly the plane and the inability to carry out perfectly normal pilots dutys such as straight and level in cloud and setting off with enough oil in.

[maxred]

However the odds of a successful forced landing with a low cloud base for example are skewed. I think there is sound justification for flying with a low cloud base with a chute.

And that one statement finishes the argument, because it epitomises the whole Cirrus/ BRS debate.

It is not the aeroplane, it is not the engine, it is not the systems, it is not anything to do with spin certification.

It, as has been pointed out and argued from the first chute pull, it is do with the individuals mind set about how they fly this aeroplane.

A mind set of, lets say, invincible, which leads to a mindset of I don't even need to check the bloody oil because I get it serviced, did you not know.that old chap.......

[Jonzarno]

It, as has been pointed out and argued from the first chute pull, it is do with the individuals mind set about how they fly this aeroplane.

Yes, that's quite right: I'd rather have a full IR, do training and maintain proper currency fly a properly IFR equipped and capable aircraft which is equipped with CAPS to let me survive a whole range of emergencies one of which is an engine failure in IMC or with a low cloud base.

That's my approach and that of pretty much every COPA member I know.

A mind set of, lets say, invincible

No: let's not say invincible, let's say prepared.

Anyone who has an IR and uses it in earnest has regularly flown with a cloud base below 500 feet given that the minima for both precision and non precision instrument approaches are less than that.

which leads to a mindset of I don't even need to check the bloody oil because I get it serviced, did you not know.that old chap.......

So you impute the actions of what may have been a single negligent or silly pilot to all the pilots of over 5500 Cirrus aircraft?

If I looked, I am pretty sure I could find a similar lapse on the part of a pilot flying a Cessna, Piper, Socata, Diamond or any other type.

Would that make all pilots of those types fools as well?

[mad_jock]

Its not the COPA members that are the problem. The ones that come on here I would be suprised if they ever need the chute.

Its all about the attitude. The simple fact that they bother thier backside to be involved with an organisation which promotes on going training and competency means they are way out of the class of the pillocks we are discussing.

And don't worry any pilot in any type who took off without oil would get the same treatment.

As I said I have done hundreds of approaches down to mins both the rvr and cloud base quite often both. None of them have been in a single.

[Pace]

Jonzarno

MJ has a valid point in the fact that an engine failure is far more likely to occur on takeoff when the engine is stressed and far less likely to fail in the cruise or approach to landing.

Those who regard pulling the chute as a primary engine failure procedure are fooling themselves as the most likely time for them to use the chute for engine failure will be when the aircraft is too low for the chute.

Hence that emphasis on the need to be very current on EFATO !

The very unlikely engine failure at 2000 feet would be more than covered with the EFATO currency thus negating the use of the chute for engine failure to unsuitable for forced landing situations.

For me the chute is another option available to the competent and current pilot in his array of options and not a get out of jail card to cover a lack of basic piloting skills.

Looking through the Cirrus chute pull accident statistics makes you wonder at some of the ludicrous situations where the chute has been pulled and question the competency of the pilots electing to pull the chute in situations where they should not be

[maxred]

Would that make all pilots of those types fools as well?

Jonzarno, sorry, no one used the word, fools, to my knowledge. They are not, nor ever, were, fools.

My take though,is that there does appear to be something wrong, and instead of the Cirrus community going all, defensive every time the BRS is mentioned, it would be advantageous, and I believe that the COPA group, do actually take this attitude/issue, call it what you want, seriously.

At the heart of course is training, and more training, and for some it is already, to late, and that is sad.

The Cirrus is a serious piece of kit, and if one can afford to get into the game with one, then one can surely afford, to get totally trained, and not make some of the situation errors that appear to be happening with some regularity.

[Fuji Abound]

MJ has a valid point in the fact that an engine failure is far more likely to occur on takeoff when the engine is stressed and far less likely to fail in the cruise or approach to landing.

Are you sure? Moment by moment you may be right, but more engines have failed in the cruise that on take off.

Hence that emphasis on the need to be very current on EFATO !

Not really. Almost always the only sensible approach to an engine failure that low is to land straight ahead, having remembered to stop the possibility of an almost instant stall. I would suggest the approach to an engine failure after take off is quite different than in the cruise. In fact get the nose down, dont turn too much and there will be little time for much else, the rest is in the lap of the Gods. Pilots I have flown with usually handle these far better than an engine failure in the cruise when they seem a great deal more capable of avoiding the best landing sites and selecting the worst!

As I said I have done hundreds of approaches down to mins both the rvr and cloud base quite often both. None of them have been in a single.

As I said earlier I really dont think that is relevant. It is your choice. Plenty of pilots spend their whole lives flying singles to mins., statistically you really are very very unlikely to suffer an engine failure in a certified well maintained single. Yes of course it might happen, just as you might hit a flock of birds with two engines and have both fail, just as the driver coming towards you might hit you head on. It happens, if you dont like the odds you do as MJ suggests, your choice and no loss of respect for making that choice but I don't think you are entitled to imply those who flying singles to mins are being irrational - in fact you can bet your life if it were that dangerous it would have been banned long ago.

How many catastrophic engine failures have you read about occurring on late final with the cloud base at mins - I cant recall the last one I read?

In fact as we know there is evidence that you are more likely to kill yourself in a light twin than a single. Yeah I know, more to do with the pilot than the extra engine, but there are plenty of twins pilots who will continue on one engine far further than they should - does that give twin pilots a bad reputation?

In fact come to think about it only this week two highly experienced commercial pilots in a CAT seemed to think this was a good idea - indeed they thought it was a good idea to complete almost the whole flight on one engine.

It engine failure on departure which the chute is cock all use for.

Not so - there is plenty of debate about how low the chute might be useful and actual evidence of the effect.

And that one statement finishes the argument, because it epitomises the whole Cirrus/ BRS debate.

Now I am confused? In what way?

[mad_jock]

It is banned for commercial transport.

And I know 4 pilots that lost a rear turbine on approach in sub 500ft wx. Using pt 6 and tp 331's. You won't read about the failures in twins. But they do happen. The reason why you don't read about them is because there isn't a crash.

Single engine min approaches are extremely rare in the grand scale of things. If there was statistics kept for the numbers even if it had happened once it would produce an unacceptable accident statistic. Similar to Concorde going from one of the best safety records to one of the worst in one crash.

[007helicopter]

'PLANE' LUCKY: pilot and passenger walk away from crash

Engine failure in a Cirrus at 5000 ft, day VMC, over a dream-field for a forced landing (check out picture No. 3): would you have pulled the chute?

Going back to the opening post and answering the question as a Cirrus owner & Pilot the answer is YES I would have pulled the chute.

The reason being because I would have in my opinion a 99% chance of survival for me and my passenger.

In an unknown surface with possible ruts, ditches, wires, tree stumps etc I have no idea at the real chances of survival and no injury but in my opinion could be around 75% - 80% chance of no serious injury or death. Maybe more maybe less, I do not know.

What I do know is that a Cirrus with small wheels, relatively high landing speed and high inertia at landing speed is no fun on a rough unknown surface. In this situation also has a high chance of flipping over. If under the stress of a forced landing I nail speeds and touch down point perfectly (which is unlikely) then the landing surface is still a complete lottery.

I understand the emotion if with hind sight pilot XYZ got him self in a bad situation and should have known better, hell we all make mistakes, but where this guy was as far as I am concerned he totally took the best course of action and is alive and well to tell the tale.

Would you have pulled the chute?

[mad_jock]

No but then again I might have been higher at 10k so could make the airport.

And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

Hell that paddock is in a better state for landing than most grass fields in the UK.

But this pretty academic because I would have checked the oil before departure and would have been on the ground ASAP after the oil light coming on. Maybe still an OFF airfield landing but a powered forced landing allowing me to do a flyby to check the paddock before committing to landing.

So the prat in question is 100% responsible for pranging a serviceable airframe. And if after nearly 2000 hours he is showing such poor PIC skills to continue with an oil light on he needs his license permanently revoked.

There were at least 3 stages where the error chain could have been broken. We're these basic airmanship actions omitted because the Prat had a chute in the back? If so the accident happened due to the chute.

[007helicopter]

And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

For me the big thing with PFL's is I understand essential in a non BRS aircraft and an essential skill for us all to practice but:

a) They never actually practice the final critical stage of actually landing off airport.

b) As an instructor how many have you said something along the lines of, that was not to good, have another go?

c) A lot easier with an instructor doing a practice, or several practices than the real life adrenalin pumping scenario of an unexpected problem.

d) I would not trust my family to fly with anyone who had the more Macho mentality of doing forced landing in fields rather than use the safer option of the chute. (If they were in a cirrus)

When I first started flying Cirrus my mentality was to land in a filed in an emergency rather than use the Chute, this only changed after about 2 years of ownership and when I studied more fatal accidents and did more training with far more experienced people than I will ever strive to be.

[Lone_Ranger]

a) They never actually practice the final critical stage of actually landing off airport.

Of course not, its high risk, likely to damage the aircraft.

Do pilots practice ballistic chute pulls?, of course not, they just simulate them

d) I would not trust my family to fly with anyone who had the more Macho mentality of doing forced landing in fields rather than use the safer option of the chute. (If they were in a cirrus)

Me neither, I also wouldnt trust an instructor, with the blinkered view that a chute pull was always the best alternative, which your post implies

[mad_jock]

that's up to you who you would send you family out with.

But personally given the choice of a commercial pilot with 1200 hours SEP experience and 5000 hours IFR 3000 of which is in manual none AP twins. And some prat who doesn't check the oil and flys with a low oil pressure light on for hours but has a chute.

I know who my nearest and dearest would be flying with.

Oh and some of us used to teach down to 5ft with the inherent risk that occurs with such low go arounds. There is a real risk that a PFL might turn into a real one when you do this so the field has to be good for it. The risk in my book was worth it because all my students were then equipped to the best of my ability for the unlikely event it ever happens to them. Until you get the student down into the ground rush phase of PFL's with fences flying towards wheels a PFL down to 500ft agl is a pretty academic exercise.

[007helicopter]

Of course not, its high risk, likely to damage the aircraft.

I suppose that is my main point, if it is likely to damage the aircraft it is likely in a a percentage of cases to damage (or kill) the occupants and the higher the landing speed the higher the damage potential.

Do pilots practice ballistic chute pulls?, of course not, they just simulate them

In a simulator yes and I was amazed how realistic it was and for me was a turning point on my own personal SOP

Me neither, I also would not trust an instructor, with the blinkered view that a chute pull was always the best alternative, which your post implies

My own SOP for any off airport situation needing to land is that I will always use the the chute, this decision is made before I take off. This is something I receive a reasonable amount of criticism for, mainly from the non Church of Cirrus community, However as a result of these forums and further thought I have modified this now and if the ground wind is likely to be 35+ knots on the ground then I will consider a landing into wind due to the risk of the chute dragging the plane along the ground.

Oh and some of us used to teach down to 5ft with the inherent risk that occurs with such low go arounds. There is a real risk that a PFL might turn into a real one when you do this so the field has to be good for it. The risk in my book was worth it because all my students were then equipped to the best of my ability for the unlikely event it ever happens to them. Until you get the student down into the ground rush phase of PFL's with fences flying towards wheels a PFL down to 500ft agl is a pretty academic exercise.

MJ Out of interest does current PPL training allow down to 5ft if the instructor chooses or has the sylabus changed?

Let me ask a question, Hypothetically if you were in a Cirrus and had 100 random unexpected forced landing, lets say in Southern England so reasonable terrain and lets also say in perfect VFR weather, How many do you think you and your passengers would walk away unscathed?

[mad_jock]

there was nothing ever to stop it. The 500ft rule though needs to be obeyed which may limit things either from lack of understanding by the instructor or from to many man made objects about.


The debate about random forced landings is relatively far down the list of incidents with cirrus. Incompetency is far higher.

Once the number of in wrong place in the wrong conditions and incompetent airmanship which maybe or maybe not be attributed to the safe feeling by the chute in the back is reduced.

Only then can the statistics be looked at for if the chute is an asset in that situation. If its the case that more incidents occur due to the chute being on board, then its having a negative effect on safety.

[007helicopter]

The debate about random forced landings is relatively far down the list of incidents with cirrus. Incompetency is far higher.

I may not disagree with that other than I would say applies equally across GA and Cirrus is no better or worse than other similar makes.

This post is about a specific chute pull and claiming a traditional forced landing should have been carried out on what some claim to be a perfectly good surface.

Based on your earlier comment

And having done hundreds of pfl' s as an instructor I wouldn't think twice about not pulling it.

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?

[shortstripper]

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?

Pretty stupid question if you ask me?

I wonder honestly how many you think you'd survive using a parachute? I mean honestly? ... If you think 100% you're deluding yourself too! It all depends on circumstances in both instances. It's a pretty crowded place ... I bet in 100 random CAP deployments in the South of the UK there would be loss of life on the ground as well!

SS

[mary meagher]

No doubt Cirrus owners are very busy people. That's how they make their money. Do we have a statistic on the percentage of Cirrus owners who invest their time on the advanced training needed to become competent pilots?

The history of the company certainly makes interesting reading; seems to be owned now by the People's Republic of China.

The latest model has 3 seats in the back, you can fold one down to fit in your golf clubs. Payload 900 pounds with enough fuel for 3 hours and reserve. But doesn't seem to offer retractable gear.
I've just done a little trawling through Trade-a-Plane, you can buy a SR22T for only $665,000. With only 48 hours TT. Wonder why the owner is selling it so soon?

[Fuji Abound]

Based on your opinion and reluctance to use this technology I was interested in how many forced landing out of 100 you personally think would be survivable by yourself in a Cirrus over average UK terrain?

You are asking the wrong person the wrong question.

Thank goodness private flying isnt the sole domain of the high hours commercial or private pilot. If it were it would be dead. The reality is most private pilots are low hours relatively infrequent flyers.

The fact is a forced landing in a single requires a reasonable level of skill and currency. On the other hand a chute pull requires only a good understanding of the procedure. In that regard on average it represents a more reliable option for most pilots than a forced landing.

The most telling view I take from this thread is the dichotomy between the "professional" pilot contributors and the "others" here and else where. I think we need to be realistic. As I said earlier the average PPL cant afford to fly twins, they dont fly hundreds of hours a year and they are challenged on their flying budget. Ok, it might be great if they did fly a lot more hours but they dont, and, if we were all required to, their would be no GA.

So it is about using technology in the best possible way to make the environment as safe as possible. We know we should check the oil and we know we should do all sorts of other pre-flight checks but, being human, we dont, or at least we are not as thorough as we always should be. I dont make that comment as an excuse, but as a reflection of the human condition. So hopefully we gradually will see aircraft that automate more of these functions. Unfortunately it has been slow to happen. Consider for one moment the automotive industry; air bags, I have sensor that warn me if the oil is low, or the tyre pressure is less than recommended - and why not. In my view these are all safety enhancements.

I embrace change. The Aztec has a critical engine, I am left pumping gear and flaps, it has six levers, cowl flaps, props that dont sync, and then the new - the DA42 has props that self sync, no pumps, no cowl flaps - you get the idea. Does the first aircraft make me a better pilot? Maybe it makes me better at demonstrating my ability to manipulate a more complex environment, but it introduces more risks, more elements I might fail to control as well as I should, more reason to remain very current.

So I think the average PPL will stand a better chance of a happier outcome landing under chute. I dont think the average private pilot is capable of flying a twin and I am not even convinced that the average light twin necessarily is a significant contribution to safety. I dont think you can compare the level of risk with CAT because GA is incapable of obtaining the same standard.

Edited to add as to Mary's question I think Cirrus really tried to design an aircraft that was as safe as possible. The undercarriage is welded because upy downy undercarriage introduces another risk - a risk of it not working, and risk of the pilot forgetting to use it, all for not a huge aerodynamic advantage, the chute was from the same recipe book, as was single lever operation, air bags in the seat belts, accurate fuel gauges etc. However they wanted the aircraft to be quick but reasonably fuel efficient. At the moment there is the catch 22 - you cant ignore that in GA terms a quick, slippery and capable aircraft still requires the pilot to keep up more so than the average spam can, and it still requires the pilot to remain that little bit more current. That could be the element Cirrus forgot, or at least the training industry, insurers and pilots forget. The balance has been pretty much addressed. Most pilots flying high performance singles are receiving better training and are now better pilots - inevitably there will always be the exceptions.

[maxred]

FA, that was a very sensible, astute, and relevant post.

The hypothesis however, presents a relatively unsafe position, going forward, introducing a similar vein as to what is being experienced in the world of commercial flying. The human v technology..

With safer aids, technology based, the human has to be even more up to speed with what's happening around them. Time may tell..