The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[maxred]

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.

Yep, bent the main spar on a Super Cub, year 2000. Someone had wrapped the wire twice round the pole, so when max applied, guess what, out came the poles as well. They fell off as climbed away, continued with the banner, now unfurled, and after landing, the aircraft was checked. Main spar bent, mmmmmmm...

Always thought had it been a standard Cub, might not have made it. A loop at 75 feet

[Jonzarno]

Yep, bent the main spar on a Super Cub, year 2000. Someone had wrapped the wire twice round the pole, so when max applied, guess what, out came the poles as well.

A bit like a sort of upwards CAPS system then?

[mad_jock]

Its not unknown for aircraft to go flying with all three concrete filled tyres tie downs still attached.

Just showing that they are about as much use as tits on a bull.

[Pace]

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.

But there is a huge difference in wearing and using a chute and the Caps!
i am sure you would not bail out of a glider if the ASI packed up? But that is exactly what happened with one chute pull!

Incredible maybe but yes it has happened as well as many other needless pulls.

This is really what the debate is about not whether the chute is a good safety benefit but when and where it should be pulled?

the debate is about just the fact of having a chute luring pilots into conditions and situations that they are ill equipt to deal with.

Normally a pilot wearing a chute bails out if the aircraft becomes unflyable as in gliding or aerobatics or where the pilot cannot recover a situation.

Not so the Caps pull where it is being used for anything and everything and Mary all your landings are FLs while some promote the idea of a Caps pull for a FL whether there is a suitable landing site below or not.

This is the worrying trend that the chute is making up for a lack of basic piloting skills rather than as an addition to a proficient and well trained and current pilots options should things go dramatically wrong

Pace

[maxred]

Its not unknown for aircraft to go flying with all three concrete filled tyres tie downs still attached.

Just showing that they are about as much use as tits on a bull

Brings back vividly the infamous Glenforsa to Edinburgh incident. FEDS not amused..........

[Fuji Abound]

Incredible maybe but yes it has happened as well as many other needless pulls.

Pace

So who decides it is a needless pull?

Me?

You?

By your standards as a commercial highly experienced pilot?

No. The point is every pilot meets the required standard to fly a Cirrus, and demonstrates that ability every other year to the satisfaction of an instructor.

At the level and standard of the pilots concerned they thought in the circumstances in which they found themselves the chute pull was necessary and in most cases in may have saved their lives. Without the chute they probably would have got themselves into the same situation.

So if a finger is to be pointed it might better be pointed at the general standard of pilots.

I know, back to the argument that Cirrus pilots take on missions that no other pilot would do because of the chute. However I simply do not believe their is the evidence to support that argument - its emotive, without a factual basis.

[mad_jock]

It is emotive and people become blinkered when they buy in to a concept.

And you will find all of us do challange the dumbing down of pilot standards.

[Jonzarno]

I am sure you would not bail out of a glider if the ASI packed up? But that is exactly what happened with one chute pull!

I believe the event refered to is this one:

CAPS event #12, Apr 2007, Luna, NM

1 injured; (CAPS Save #10) - Factors: IMC cruise, climb to avoid weather, loss of airspeed indication, terrain warning in IMC; Activation: low altitude, inverted, 34 knots airspeed; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: trees, mountainous terrain

From that summary, it's obvious that the actual scenario under which the pilot pulled was far from “Oh look! I've lost my ASI, I'd better pull CAPS” as implied in this post.

This isn't the first time someone has selected a single emotive element from the whole range of factors that made a pilot decide to pull and then pilloried him for his decision from the safety of an armchair.

The pilot lost control of his aircraft in IMC in mountainous terrain and pulled when inverted at 34 KTS airspeed when he got a terrain warning. One factor amongst all of that was a loss of ASI.

Given the situation in which he found himself, what else should he have done?

Should he have lost control in the first place? No, nobody should but people do and unarguably, having got into that situation, if he hadn't pulled he would have died.

Thankfully, he did pull and, as a result, he lived.

I am not trying to “convert the unconvertable” to the idea that CAPS needs to be an integrated part of emergencies handling in a Cirrus. I know that there are plenty of sky gods here who wouldn't have pulled in these, or perhaps in any other, circumstances. As I said in an earlier post: “your life, your choice”.

What I am trying to do is persuade new and inexperienced Cirrus pilots to do transition training with a good CSIP and, if possible, go to a CPPP weekend and learn about how to manage and, if necessary, use this proven life saving resource properly.

What worries me about all these CAPS bashing threads is that a newly minted, low hours Cirrus pilot may wander on here and be discouraged from learning about the system and, if it comes to it, be discouraged from using it by the comments in these threads.

I really pray that that doesn't happen: I gave an example of one experienced Cirrus pilot who died with a perfectly good parachute undeployed behind him earlier in this thread. Sadly, there have been far too many others.

Set against that are the lives of the 87 people that the system has saved.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

The last couple of chute pulls in the UK were due to inadvertent flight into IMC, how about some better IMC training, then maybe we won't be raining Cirruses (?) Cirri (?) okay , very well equipped private aircraft over Banbury and the middle of Gloucester.


And before anybody decides to tell me I know F### all I've been flying for 35 years, 26 years professionally, hold ATPL/A and ATPL/H and have nearly 15 000 TT, and listening at my local flying club sometimes I want to shake people out of their complacency and shoot the authorities who have dumbed down all areas of flight training over the last 40 years.


I can see a use for BRS over difficult terrain in the engine failure case, but I can also see a lot of reasons for not flying over that terrain in the first place. As someone wrote earlier most engine failures are at low level where the chute is no use, so what do Cirrus pilots do in that case, I know of one young man who got away with it by dint of going straight back to PPL first principles, will others crash because the chute wasn't available?


Rant Over


SND

[Jonzarno]

how about some better IMC training

Yes: absolutely right!

In my last post, I talked about Cirrus specific transition training and the benefits of the CPPP programme.

They help pilots, whether instrument rated or not, to fly their aircraft as safely as possible within the constraints of their qualifications.

That said: getting more pilots instrument qualified would also be a great step forward and, hopefully, the new more accessible instrument qualifications coming to EASA land may help with that.

It's striking how many more pilots in the US regard going on to get an IR as a natural progression from their PPL.

[Pace]

1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #3) - Factors: confusing instrument behaviour, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees

Jonzarno

This was the one I was referring to and I beg the question of what the pilot thought he was doing climbing into IMC and unable to deal with "confusing interment behaviour?" !!!
Yes the idiots life was saved by the Caps but what the heck was he doing there in the first place?
Hard IMC is not a playground for incompetent pilots relying on autopilots or systems to fly the aircraft for them they have a habit of going wrong.

The Cirrus will get attention as it is the most prominent make to offer the Caps as standard and the CAPS is an exciting safety device.

when its use is promoted for events where conventional training teaches you otherwise like in FLs then it is only natural that discussions will take place on when to pull or not to pull

Pace

[mary meagher]

Well, it all comes down to money, doesn't it? You can buy a secondhand Cirrus with rocket for half a million dollars. Can somebody get me an insurance quotation for a Cirrus?

Nope, can't afford that either.

So if you are such a valuable and important person that your time is seriously worth the same as a professional football player, you can buy the plane, the rocket, and skip the training!

In the end, the lawyers set the boundaries, how much is my life worth? (not a lot, no longer under warranty). If the plane I am passenger in goes splat, how much will the underwriters have to pay out?

Believe me, for most of us, unless young, skilled, and living in the Western world, not a lot.

[Jonzarno]

Pace

I thought you said he pulled when he lost his ASI?

I have looked up the CAPS pull you now say this was.

As you quote, the summary says:

CAPS event #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #3) - Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees

Based on that you call him an “idiot”. Hmmmm.

Here is an account from someone who actually spoke to the pilot involved, I have redacted the pilots name:

“The aircraft was occupied by a single pilot, is described as a high-time Cirrus pilot with a "lot" of experience.

According to someone at the local service center who spoke to [him] shortly after the accident - [The pilot] was in IMC and all his instruments went.

So hardly a reflexive pull on losing an ASI then?

[Crash one]

It seems that this chute availability is upsetting the Darwin Awards process.

[Jonzarno]

If the plane I am passenger in goes splat, how much will the underwriters have to pay out?

If it goes splat under CAPS, rather less than if you are killed. That's why many insurers in the US will waive the insurance excess if CAPS is used.

[Pace]

The aircraft was occupied by a single pilot, is described as a high-time Cirrus pilot with a "lot" of experience.
According to someone at the local service center who spoke to [him] shortly after the accident - [The pilot] was in IMC and all his instruments went.

Jonzarno

The official recording stated water in the static system so are you saying he lost everything? If that is the case then this would be a serious worry for Cirrus.

According to someone at the local service centre sounds a wee bit vague and unfactual? And maybe a bit face saving by a highly embarrassed pilot

But hey this is not knocking Cirrus or the chute one bit! I am taking 50 hrs in one and am very convinced by the aircraft and the chute but hope I won't be pulling for 70% of the chute pulls quoted and if I did I would hide under a rock and pack it in

Pace

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I take it nobody ever taught him limited panel flying, or if they did just chucked one lesson at it and it was never practised again.


SND

[Jonzarno]

Pace

As I understand it, this was an early G1 so no glass PFD.

The guy was at low level in IMC in an aircraft that that was giving him confusing information.

I don't know what else, if anything, went wrong other than water in the pitot static system, but my point is that it was certainly not a reflexive pull on loss of an ASI only as claimed by your earlier post.

In those circumstances, I presume you wouldn't have pulled and probably been ok. You make your decision and he made his: I respect both positions on this.

But I do think that calling him an idiot for doing so is a bit rich!

If you are doing 50 hours in a Cirrus, please consider joining COPA and coming to a CPPP (there's one at Cambridge on the weekend of 21 June). Even the most experienced pilots find both well worth while.

SND

Neither of us knows the circumstances that he faced when he pulled the parachute.

From the account, however, we do know that he was a high time and experienced pilot so was, presumably, well familiar with partial panel work so it seems a bit unfair immediately to jump to the conclusion that he was just incompetent.

But whether he was or wasn't: he is alive and the decision to pull was his alone to make.

[tecman]

Just when you thought there could be nothing left to say in this thread....

Check out the thread in the Pacific forum.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...mountains.html

The video isn't great, but it definitely conveys the idea.

[maxred]

It's raining Cirrus again. I have now added it to my list of types NoT to fly in, because regardless of survivability avec BRS, they do appear to suffer from some incredible reliability issues