The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
The flying school I have taught at off and on for 25 years requires an annual proficiency check ride for our PPL renter pilots. I always fail the engine at some point during the ride, in cruise flight, at altitude, with a landable surface within easy gliding range. What I don't do is set them up for one of the half dozen or do fields that are always used during flight training.
In all those years I have never had a PPL renter pilot do a wholly successful PFR. That is complete a good cause check and manoeuvre the aircraft so that it would arrive at the chosen touchdown point at a suitable touchdown speed. Probably half were so badly flown they likely would have resulted in a fatalities.
This is a case of "what is" vs "what should be". What should is that every pilot could fly a perfect PFL at any time. What is, is the reality that this skill is not being maintained. I support the concept that for a relatively fast, heavy, airplane with small tires, if the engine were to fail the best course of action will almost always be pulling the chute.
As I have pointed out in other threads approximately 80% of engine failures in SEP's are caused by the pilot. The best way to deal with an engine failure is to not have it fail in the first place, or if it does, get it going again. That is where the training emphasis needs to start
FA makes a very good point. The reality for PPL's is that they will in any given time frame have a relatively low amount of flying time. Part of this flying time must IMO be devoted to skills maintenance. So given that skills practice time is not infinite where could those flying hours be best used. looking at accident reports I don't see very many cases where lack of ability to fly a Forced Approach after an unforeseeable engine failure resulted in calamity. What I see are a bunch of badly flown PFL's after a engine failure that was totally preventable and never had to happen. I also see a discouragingly large number of airplanes bent on takeoff and landing after the pilot could not properly control the aircraft.
If you want to do skills training wouldn't it be better to concentrate on those things that the accident statistics show pilots are not doing very well at ?
In all those years I have never had a PPL renter pilot do a wholly successful PFR. That is complete a good cause check and manoeuvre the aircraft so that it would arrive at the chosen touchdown point at a suitable touchdown speed. Probably half were so badly flown they likely would have resulted in a fatalities.
This is a case of "what is" vs "what should be". What should is that every pilot could fly a perfect PFL at any time. What is, is the reality that this skill is not being maintained. I support the concept that for a relatively fast, heavy, airplane with small tires, if the engine were to fail the best course of action will almost always be pulling the chute.
As I have pointed out in other threads approximately 80% of engine failures in SEP's are caused by the pilot. The best way to deal with an engine failure is to not have it fail in the first place, or if it does, get it going again. That is where the training emphasis needs to start
FA makes a very good point. The reality for PPL's is that they will in any given time frame have a relatively low amount of flying time. Part of this flying time must IMO be devoted to skills maintenance. So given that skills practice time is not infinite where could those flying hours be best used. looking at accident reports I don't see very many cases where lack of ability to fly a Forced Approach after an unforeseeable engine failure resulted in calamity. What I see are a bunch of badly flown PFL's after a engine failure that was totally preventable and never had to happen. I also see a discouragingly large number of airplanes bent on takeoff and landing after the pilot could not properly control the aircraft.
If you want to do skills training wouldn't it be better to concentrate on those things that the accident statistics show pilots are not doing very well at ?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seems very sensible to me BPF.
And in this case it would have been solved by.
1. Checking the oil before departure and toping up.
2. Diverting when the oil light came on.
All pretty simple stuff which any flavour of private pilot should be doing be they 45 hours or 2000 hours.
So yes the chute pull was completely avoidable and unnecessary a forced landing would be described as "The most unnecessary forced landing ever"
BUt it still comes back to if he did what he did because he had a chute in the back.
And in this case it would have been solved by.
1. Checking the oil before departure and toping up.
2. Diverting when the oil light came on.
All pretty simple stuff which any flavour of private pilot should be doing be they 45 hours or 2000 hours.
So yes the chute pull was completely avoidable and unnecessary a forced landing would be described as "The most unnecessary forced landing ever"
BUt it still comes back to if he did what he did because he had a chute in the back.
Last edited by mad_jock; 6th May 2014 at 03:01.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ - BPF & FA all well made points
Sorry MJ Cannot agree, I am sure if I looked through there are sadly even worse cases.
Agree the main mistake was not to divert as soon as a suspect oil problem, he was clearly wrong to press on, did the chute influence that? I do not know but fully accept it can not be ruled out and hope to hell in a similar situation I would not be lured in by this thinking.
However, having made a gross error as many Pilots do, he finds himself with a seized engine at 5000ft, from that point I believe he fortunately did everything pretty much right and made a decision at 2000ft to pull the chute over a safe looking wide open area.
He may have been able to pull off a safe forced landing, or may not and could have suffered serious injury or death.
Personally I would not fancy it and would prefer in this specific case my improved chances under the chute.
So yes the chute pull was completely avoidable and unnecessary a forced landing would be described as "The most unnecessary forced landing ever"
Agree the main mistake was not to divert as soon as a suspect oil problem, he was clearly wrong to press on, did the chute influence that? I do not know but fully accept it can not be ruled out and hope to hell in a similar situation I would not be lured in by this thinking.
However, having made a gross error as many Pilots do, he finds himself with a seized engine at 5000ft, from that point I believe he fortunately did everything pretty much right and made a decision at 2000ft to pull the chute over a safe looking wide open area.
He may have been able to pull off a safe forced landing, or may not and could have suffered serious injury or death.
Personally I would not fancy it and would prefer in this specific case my improved chances under the chute.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will never know what would have happened if he tried.
Its all linked in to the advances in information presentation as well.
The old steam gauges are harder to get your head round but once you do they work. There are alot less failure modes. There are alot less interactions between them all and knowledge required to understand failure modes.
I have 1000 hours on EFIS when flying it we had weekly comparator errors screen drop outs and numerous other what the hell is wrong with it now type stuff. Usually fixed by doing the old off on trick.
My other hours are on steam and I can count on one hand the number of instrument failures. And none of them were particularly exciting. I have had lightening strikes and apart from the GPS taking a wobbly the pilots underpants came off worse than the aircraft.
So it could also be that the thing is just to easy for incompetents to fly when everything is working. It flys like a computer game and they need an escape button when anything goes wrong.
Its all linked in to the advances in information presentation as well.
The old steam gauges are harder to get your head round but once you do they work. There are alot less failure modes. There are alot less interactions between them all and knowledge required to understand failure modes.
I have 1000 hours on EFIS when flying it we had weekly comparator errors screen drop outs and numerous other what the hell is wrong with it now type stuff. Usually fixed by doing the old off on trick.
My other hours are on steam and I can count on one hand the number of instrument failures. And none of them were particularly exciting. I have had lightening strikes and apart from the GPS taking a wobbly the pilots underpants came off worse than the aircraft.
So it could also be that the thing is just to easy for incompetents to fly when everything is working. It flys like a computer game and they need an escape button when anything goes wrong.
Last edited by mad_jock; 6th May 2014 at 06:55.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
You are at 300 ft on climbout with the runway behind and a nice big field directly ahead..?
You are 1/2 a mile from coasting in a few miles east of Shoreham at 2000ft in late January with a 12 knot offshore wind.....?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull the chute! Pull the chute!! Pull the bloody chute!!
EVERY TIME I climb in a glider I strap on a parachute. Even went on a course to do a parachute jump to see if the damn thing works;( it did, but wasn't a very comfortable landing....)
So obviously I am in favour of a get out of jail card. We are REQUIRED to wear parachutes if (1) flying in cloud ... yes, in the UK, we are allowed to fly IMC in gliders. or (2) if flying in competition ....we fly a LOT closer to other gliders than power pilots do. The occasional glider/power midair usually, on investigation by the AAIB, turns out to have been the power pilot who wasn't looking out. And it is usually fatal to the power pilot, who doesn't have the option of using his chute - unless he is, of course, flying in a ...... At my age I have a struggle just climbing out of the glider on the ground, so a rocket would come in handy. But me worry? about doing a field landing? gliders have more time to decide and to plan, and we know the performance of our aircraft. ... Goes down, usually, unless you find lift.
Actually, with all those fancy big screens to look at in the front of the Cirrus cockpit, its a wonder the pilot can see out at all. No doubt he is carrying FLARM in case there is a glider nearby....for sure, ATC won't tell him about 50 gliders flying down a cloud street in a competition on a good soaring day!
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)
My question this time is did those chaps in BEND, OREGON, ever make a success of the GLIDER that had a Ballistic Recovery Chute installed? I know a few of those guys pulled the chute. If anybody reading this can bring me up to date on their story, please do!
So obviously I am in favour of a get out of jail card. We are REQUIRED to wear parachutes if (1) flying in cloud ... yes, in the UK, we are allowed to fly IMC in gliders. or (2) if flying in competition ....we fly a LOT closer to other gliders than power pilots do. The occasional glider/power midair usually, on investigation by the AAIB, turns out to have been the power pilot who wasn't looking out. And it is usually fatal to the power pilot, who doesn't have the option of using his chute - unless he is, of course, flying in a ...... At my age I have a struggle just climbing out of the glider on the ground, so a rocket would come in handy. But me worry? about doing a field landing? gliders have more time to decide and to plan, and we know the performance of our aircraft. ... Goes down, usually, unless you find lift.
Actually, with all those fancy big screens to look at in the front of the Cirrus cockpit, its a wonder the pilot can see out at all. No doubt he is carrying FLARM in case there is a glider nearby....for sure, ATC won't tell him about 50 gliders flying down a cloud street in a competition on a good soaring day!
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)
My question this time is did those chaps in BEND, OREGON, ever make a success of the GLIDER that had a Ballistic Recovery Chute installed? I know a few of those guys pulled the chute. If anybody reading this can bring me up to date on their story, please do!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, with all those fancy big screens to look at in the front of the Cirrus cockpit, its a wonder the pilot can see out at all. No doubt he is carrying FLARM in case there is a glider nearby....for sure, ATC won't tell him about 50 gliders flying down a cloud street in a competition on a good soaring day!
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)
(Advice to power pilots on a good soaring day....fly well above cloud base if you can!)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.....
From the BBC today:
BBC News - Pilot unhurt after plane hits house in Colorado
Far better to hit at 60 KTS and do a proper job than at 17........
Happily, the pilot was lucky enough not to have been badly hurt.
No CAPS pull has ever done this much damage nor has there been a post impact fire.
From the BBC today:
BBC News - Pilot unhurt after plane hits house in Colorado
Far better to hit at 60 KTS and do a proper job than at 17........
Happily, the pilot was lucky enough not to have been badly hurt.
No CAPS pull has ever done this much damage nor has there been a post impact fire.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No CAPS pull has ever done this much damage nor has there been a post impact fire.
SS
PS Joking of course! ... Please take that as tongue in cheek as that is how it's meant.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mind you a wooden Colorado home and a clapped tow plane the insurance pay out will still be less that the cirrus chute pull.
And from the heights they tow at in the US the chute would have been outside its deploy envelope.
And from the heights they tow at in the US the chute would have been outside its deploy envelope.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have seen of them after a pick up its max continuous power then curvature of the earth which dictates how high up they are.
And if your not glide clear you shouldn't be there. Again something that shouldn't have happened if basic airmanship had been followed.
And if your not glide clear you shouldn't be there. Again something that shouldn't have happened if basic airmanship had been followed.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, although I don't know much about banner towing, I think that is how they work and, as you say, it's quite scary.
Given that it's (presumably) a commercial operation, isn't it regulated at all?
FWIW, the way I read this one was that he had not yet picked up the banner but was on his way to get it. Anyway, I can't see any sign of the banner in the picture.
For me, it looks like he was just to low to glide clear.
Anyhow, I'm simply glad he's OK and nobody in the house was hurt.
Given that it's (presumably) a commercial operation, isn't it regulated at all?
FWIW, the way I read this one was that he had not yet picked up the banner but was on his way to get it. Anyway, I can't see any sign of the banner in the picture.
For me, it looks like he was just to low to glide clear.
Anyhow, I'm simply glad he's OK and nobody in the house was hurt.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IN the UK is very heavily regulated so much so I think only 3-4 places do it. And I suspect they are old AOC's that its on with grandfather rights. I suspect you wouldn't have a chance in hell with a new AOC.
You pick up in a separate area then transit. The area needs to be quite open as you can see below so is normally done at an airfield. next to the runway.
They take off then drop a line and hook off the back. That dangles at the back about 10-15ft long. They can either do it with the line held up front if its a glider tug convert or have two hook releases for the attachment at the back.
Then a wire is hung between two poles about 10ft off the ground and 10-15ft apart attached to the banner which is folded in a special way.
The plane is then flown at the wire at Vne. Then its pulled into a sharp climb and max power. They want it to be a steep as possible so the banner pulls clean and no twists etc. If that happens they have to drop it and start again.
If they go to low the hook bounces on the ground and can go over the top to smash into the prop of the cockpit. If they are to high they miss it.
Then when the airspeed drops to stall they lower the nose and then go on there way.
He will have dumped the banner as soon as he had an engine problem, with it on the back he would have had the glide performance of a house brick. They have bloody heavy lumps of lead on them to keep the thing stable and not to spin. And the cable isn't light either. You don't want to be near it when it comes down.
the only reason why I know this is because the CFI at my old school wanted to do it. Thankfully it never happened.
Funny enough the C172 is about the only aircraft that doesn't need a major mod to be able to banner tow, just the hook release. You can't just use a glider tug as its significantly more load than towing one of them.
This info was gained years ago and maybe not complete or have slight inaccuracy's.
My personal view when I watched the pickup training video was "
that for a game of Soldiers" and I have seen absolutely nothing to change my view on that.
You pick up in a separate area then transit. The area needs to be quite open as you can see below so is normally done at an airfield. next to the runway.
They take off then drop a line and hook off the back. That dangles at the back about 10-15ft long. They can either do it with the line held up front if its a glider tug convert or have two hook releases for the attachment at the back.
Then a wire is hung between two poles about 10ft off the ground and 10-15ft apart attached to the banner which is folded in a special way.
The plane is then flown at the wire at Vne. Then its pulled into a sharp climb and max power. They want it to be a steep as possible so the banner pulls clean and no twists etc. If that happens they have to drop it and start again.
If they go to low the hook bounces on the ground and can go over the top to smash into the prop of the cockpit. If they are to high they miss it.
Then when the airspeed drops to stall they lower the nose and then go on there way.
He will have dumped the banner as soon as he had an engine problem, with it on the back he would have had the glide performance of a house brick. They have bloody heavy lumps of lead on them to keep the thing stable and not to spin. And the cable isn't light either. You don't want to be near it when it comes down.
the only reason why I know this is because the CFI at my old school wanted to do it. Thankfully it never happened.
Funny enough the C172 is about the only aircraft that doesn't need a major mod to be able to banner tow, just the hook release. You can't just use a glider tug as its significantly more load than towing one of them.
This info was gained years ago and maybe not complete or have slight inaccuracy's.
My personal view when I watched the pickup training video was "
that for a game of Soldiers" and I have seen absolutely nothing to change my view on that.
Last edited by mad_jock; 7th May 2014 at 10:55.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are banners and banners. Along any holiday beach in the US of A there will be somebody pulling a banner; some are incredibly heavy and awkward, others relatively light, and you don't need all that much power to unroll a string of letters that were laid out nicely on the lawn.
In Florida they take off all the cowlings and fly the Supercub with the engine hanging out in the breezes, so it doesn't get overheated.
I watched them doing the banner towing, with a suitable romantic message, at Clacton on Sea where I went for my tailwheel conversion training. Just a bog standard Supercub 150 hp. The rope was strung over a couple of poles, the Cub dived down and picked up the yoke with the towhook, and THEN the rope somehow went loopy and entangled itself with the empennage! The cub had to fly sideways, couldn't dump the banner, and did an amazing landing ACROSS the grass runway, the whole banner and rope acting as an impromptu arrestor device, for it stopped in about ten feet, no harm done.
I decided to stick to towing gliders.
In Florida they take off all the cowlings and fly the Supercub with the engine hanging out in the breezes, so it doesn't get overheated.
I watched them doing the banner towing, with a suitable romantic message, at Clacton on Sea where I went for my tailwheel conversion training. Just a bog standard Supercub 150 hp. The rope was strung over a couple of poles, the Cub dived down and picked up the yoke with the towhook, and THEN the rope somehow went loopy and entangled itself with the empennage! The cub had to fly sideways, couldn't dump the banner, and did an amazing landing ACROSS the grass runway, the whole banner and rope acting as an impromptu arrestor device, for it stopped in about ten feet, no harm done.
I decided to stick to towing gliders.