The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
It has actually already happened:
CAPS event #14, Oct 2008, Spain
3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #12) - Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: power line
Everyone survived....
It has actually already happened:
CAPS event #14, Oct 2008, Spain
3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #12) - Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: power line
Everyone survived....
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Montana
Age: 62
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
I am new here. Wrote a post few pages back and have not come back till now, prompted by the latest pull in Australia. Anybody seen that amazing video?
Reading all these posts I sense an "unfair" treatment of Cirrus owners. Wonder why? The Columbia has fancy screens, but nobody speaks of their owners the same way...
By the way, not having the central column/yoke, allows for a lower dash and much better forward visibility.
I have flown gliders, high wing Cessna, Cirrus, and Eclipse Jet, and I have trained for emergency in different way in the different planes.
In gliders, in Europe, I always wore a parachute! First time in Australia, renting a glider, no chute, I felt so naked that I could not fly relaxed.
The Eclipse has two engines, flies at 410, but has no chute. My wife does not like that. Now she has to learn a lot more in case of my incapacitation, than just pulling that handle.
In my years of flying I have had three engine failures. Real ones. One was the Stinson towing my glider on take off. No use for the chute there. Was lucky enough to hear it, it stopped on the runway, I took off, flew over his rudder, disengaged, and landed in front of his prop.
The second one was in our new second Cirrus. That was more a partial loss of power than a full failure. We were at 17,500, kept it at gliding range of a airport, till a Bonanza hit its tail landing and they closed that runway (lucky me) and so I sputtered to the next airport where I landed with no incident. In that one, had I found myself crossing 1000, with no airport in sight and not enough power to stop my descend, I WOULD HAVE PULLED.
Third time, you would think I am kidding, in a Cardinal, 177RG which I rented because you cannot do your commercial in a Cirrus since it has fixed gear! So here I am renting this plane, which after 50 minutes of flying around the foot hills of the rockies (where I live) decides to quit (fuel pump completely separated from case) suddenly 5 miles from base at 1200 feet. Declared and was lucky enough to glide it home.
With the jet, every year we have recurrent training and a check ride. Part of it is going to idle at 15,000 and land it from there. My point being is you better train to be ready in the machine you are flying. USING ALL THE EQUIPMENT that machine offers you. So, if the chute is part of that equipment, I had made the decision, ON THE GROUND, of the circumstances in which I would use it.
Regarding the comments about having the chute in the Cirrus makes for less prudent pilots, or lazier pilots because of the perceived safety I cite the training of military pilots with eject-able seats... They don't take more risks just because of that equipment.
I am sure that most of are here because of a fundamental common factor... OUR LOVE FOR BEING UP THERE! Like someone said here I rather see an alive stupid pilot than a dead stupid pilot, or an alive unlucky one, or an alive incapacitated one.
A final comment, the Cirrus allows for great fulfillment in both leisure flying as well as business flying. So, while other types have higher use as trainers or sightseeing platforms, the Cirrus can perform both well. When used "on business" it is a solid IFR platform, with an amazing set of avionics and great families of autopilots. Both the DFC series as well as the Garmins provide envelope protection and the latter has an hypoxia "recovery" systems.
The hours flown this way are statistically very "different hours" from the ones flown either in VFR or around the pattern.
Finally, from a public page about safety on COPA, I would like to quote the rates, which actually confute the ones here who have stated that Cirrus have higher rates than the average in general aviation.
See the web here.
=========
Cirrus Fatal Accident Rate
Because Cirrus Design collaborates with COPA, we have access to their compilation of fleet flying hours. This enables COPA to calculate the following fatal accident rates.*
Past 36 months: 1.57
We use a 3-year average because, with a modest fleet size of 5,500 airplanes flying about 800,000 hours per year, the accident rate varies substantially with only a few accidents. By contrast, the GA fleet contains 200,000 airplanes flying about 20,000,000 hours per year, or about 40 times more aircraft flying about 30 times more hours.
In the past 36 months, there have been 35 fatal accidents and approximately 2,200,000 flying hours for a rate of 1.57 fatal accident per 100,000 hours of flying time.
Past 12 months: 1.07
In the past 12 months, there have been 9 accidents in approximately 840,000 flight hours for a rate of 1.07 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.
GA fleet: 1.24 overall, 2.38 for Personal & Business flying
We compare the Cirrus fatal accident rate to the overall general aviation rate for non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft of 1.24 for 2011 (ref NTSB aviation safety statistics).
The Cirrus rates appears higher than the overall GA rate of 1.24. However, the NTSB report covers all types of GA flying, including corporate flying with professional pilots, as well as twin-engine aircraft and turbo-prop and turbojet aircraft, which skew the activity comparable to flying done by Cirrus SR2X aircraft.*
Consequently, we also compare the civil aviation accident analysis published by the NTSB, which separates the purposes of flying into Personal, Business, Instructional, Corporate and various other activities. Using that data, we determined the accident rate for Personal and Business flying to be 2.38 for 2009. The Cirrus SR2X rates compare favorably with those more comparable activities.
The fatal accident rates for Cirrus aircraft averaged over 12-months (blue) and 36-months (red) compared with the Nall report GA fatal accident rate (green) and the NTSB Personal & Business rate (grey).
*Caution on comparing fatal accident rates
Care must be taken when comparing fatal accident rates with other models or manufacturers. Because the Reliability Engineering staff at Cirrus Aircraft maintain a database of flight hours by serial number for their world-wide fleet, we have access to the estimated fleet hours for Cirrus SR2X aircraft. COPA then uses those hours with the world-wide number of accidents to compute a rate. We know of no other manufacturer that shares their fleet flying hours. And as stated above, we use both the 12-month and 36-month intervals to address the effects of a small fleet of about 1/30 of the 150,000 single-engine fixed-wind piston aircraft in the FAA database.
The NTSB and FAA fatal accident rates are focused on N-reg aircraft primarily based in the US and flight activity from a survey also based primarily in the US. Furthermore, the types of operations in the survey include commercial, business, pleasure, instructional, aerial application and other purposes. Those operations are weighted quite differently than the Cirrus fleet. For instance, commercial and instructional flying have extraordinarily few accidents and large numbers of flying hours, so when you remove those from the NTSB calculation, the remaining large number of accidents and modest number of flying hours result in a much higher accident rate. While there are some commercial and instructional flight activity in the Cirrus fleet, the proportions appear to be quite different.
Comparing the Cirrus rate to other models or manufacturers cannot be done reliably without an estimate of flying hours for those aircraft. Because the age of the Cirrus fleet, where all airplanes were produced since mid-1999, and because of the limited roles for Cirrus aircraft compared to others, any comparison is fraught with difficulty.
Please be thoughtful about how these accident rates are discussed.
===========
END RANT.
Enjoy our beautiful skies and be safe!
I am new here. Wrote a post few pages back and have not come back till now, prompted by the latest pull in Australia. Anybody seen that amazing video?
Reading all these posts I sense an "unfair" treatment of Cirrus owners. Wonder why? The Columbia has fancy screens, but nobody speaks of their owners the same way...
By the way, not having the central column/yoke, allows for a lower dash and much better forward visibility.
I have flown gliders, high wing Cessna, Cirrus, and Eclipse Jet, and I have trained for emergency in different way in the different planes.
In gliders, in Europe, I always wore a parachute! First time in Australia, renting a glider, no chute, I felt so naked that I could not fly relaxed.
The Eclipse has two engines, flies at 410, but has no chute. My wife does not like that. Now she has to learn a lot more in case of my incapacitation, than just pulling that handle.
In my years of flying I have had three engine failures. Real ones. One was the Stinson towing my glider on take off. No use for the chute there. Was lucky enough to hear it, it stopped on the runway, I took off, flew over his rudder, disengaged, and landed in front of his prop.
The second one was in our new second Cirrus. That was more a partial loss of power than a full failure. We were at 17,500, kept it at gliding range of a airport, till a Bonanza hit its tail landing and they closed that runway (lucky me) and so I sputtered to the next airport where I landed with no incident. In that one, had I found myself crossing 1000, with no airport in sight and not enough power to stop my descend, I WOULD HAVE PULLED.
Third time, you would think I am kidding, in a Cardinal, 177RG which I rented because you cannot do your commercial in a Cirrus since it has fixed gear! So here I am renting this plane, which after 50 minutes of flying around the foot hills of the rockies (where I live) decides to quit (fuel pump completely separated from case) suddenly 5 miles from base at 1200 feet. Declared and was lucky enough to glide it home.
With the jet, every year we have recurrent training and a check ride. Part of it is going to idle at 15,000 and land it from there. My point being is you better train to be ready in the machine you are flying. USING ALL THE EQUIPMENT that machine offers you. So, if the chute is part of that equipment, I had made the decision, ON THE GROUND, of the circumstances in which I would use it.
Regarding the comments about having the chute in the Cirrus makes for less prudent pilots, or lazier pilots because of the perceived safety I cite the training of military pilots with eject-able seats... They don't take more risks just because of that equipment.
I am sure that most of are here because of a fundamental common factor... OUR LOVE FOR BEING UP THERE! Like someone said here I rather see an alive stupid pilot than a dead stupid pilot, or an alive unlucky one, or an alive incapacitated one.
A final comment, the Cirrus allows for great fulfillment in both leisure flying as well as business flying. So, while other types have higher use as trainers or sightseeing platforms, the Cirrus can perform both well. When used "on business" it is a solid IFR platform, with an amazing set of avionics and great families of autopilots. Both the DFC series as well as the Garmins provide envelope protection and the latter has an hypoxia "recovery" systems.
The hours flown this way are statistically very "different hours" from the ones flown either in VFR or around the pattern.
Finally, from a public page about safety on COPA, I would like to quote the rates, which actually confute the ones here who have stated that Cirrus have higher rates than the average in general aviation.
See the web here.
=========
Cirrus Fatal Accident Rate
Because Cirrus Design collaborates with COPA, we have access to their compilation of fleet flying hours. This enables COPA to calculate the following fatal accident rates.*
Past 36 months: 1.57
We use a 3-year average because, with a modest fleet size of 5,500 airplanes flying about 800,000 hours per year, the accident rate varies substantially with only a few accidents. By contrast, the GA fleet contains 200,000 airplanes flying about 20,000,000 hours per year, or about 40 times more aircraft flying about 30 times more hours.
In the past 36 months, there have been 35 fatal accidents and approximately 2,200,000 flying hours for a rate of 1.57 fatal accident per 100,000 hours of flying time.
Past 12 months: 1.07
In the past 12 months, there have been 9 accidents in approximately 840,000 flight hours for a rate of 1.07 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.
GA fleet: 1.24 overall, 2.38 for Personal & Business flying
We compare the Cirrus fatal accident rate to the overall general aviation rate for non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft of 1.24 for 2011 (ref NTSB aviation safety statistics).
The Cirrus rates appears higher than the overall GA rate of 1.24. However, the NTSB report covers all types of GA flying, including corporate flying with professional pilots, as well as twin-engine aircraft and turbo-prop and turbojet aircraft, which skew the activity comparable to flying done by Cirrus SR2X aircraft.*
Consequently, we also compare the civil aviation accident analysis published by the NTSB, which separates the purposes of flying into Personal, Business, Instructional, Corporate and various other activities. Using that data, we determined the accident rate for Personal and Business flying to be 2.38 for 2009. The Cirrus SR2X rates compare favorably with those more comparable activities.
The fatal accident rates for Cirrus aircraft averaged over 12-months (blue) and 36-months (red) compared with the Nall report GA fatal accident rate (green) and the NTSB Personal & Business rate (grey).
*Caution on comparing fatal accident rates
Care must be taken when comparing fatal accident rates with other models or manufacturers. Because the Reliability Engineering staff at Cirrus Aircraft maintain a database of flight hours by serial number for their world-wide fleet, we have access to the estimated fleet hours for Cirrus SR2X aircraft. COPA then uses those hours with the world-wide number of accidents to compute a rate. We know of no other manufacturer that shares their fleet flying hours. And as stated above, we use both the 12-month and 36-month intervals to address the effects of a small fleet of about 1/30 of the 150,000 single-engine fixed-wind piston aircraft in the FAA database.
The NTSB and FAA fatal accident rates are focused on N-reg aircraft primarily based in the US and flight activity from a survey also based primarily in the US. Furthermore, the types of operations in the survey include commercial, business, pleasure, instructional, aerial application and other purposes. Those operations are weighted quite differently than the Cirrus fleet. For instance, commercial and instructional flying have extraordinarily few accidents and large numbers of flying hours, so when you remove those from the NTSB calculation, the remaining large number of accidents and modest number of flying hours result in a much higher accident rate. While there are some commercial and instructional flight activity in the Cirrus fleet, the proportions appear to be quite different.
Comparing the Cirrus rate to other models or manufacturers cannot be done reliably without an estimate of flying hours for those aircraft. Because the age of the Cirrus fleet, where all airplanes were produced since mid-1999, and because of the limited roles for Cirrus aircraft compared to others, any comparison is fraught with difficulty.
Please be thoughtful about how these accident rates are discussed.
===========
END RANT.
Enjoy our beautiful skies and be safe!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planes & Helicopters (And I imagine Gliders) manage to hit power lines with or with out a Chute, in normal flight and forced landings so I do not see the risk any higher.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://youtu.be/DX-QUVen9Ng
This CAPS pull from a few days ago also in Astralia, I understand a very new G5 model on a demo flight (stand by for what a rubbish plane, what an incompetent pilot, I would have landed it on the road etc etc)
However for me the best video ever captured to show the relatively slow descent speed under CAPS, compare this to 65 knots of forward inertia and I think a massive factor in survivability rates.
This CAPS pull from a few days ago also in Astralia, I understand a very new G5 model on a demo flight (stand by for what a rubbish plane, what an incompetent pilot, I would have landed it on the road etc etc)
However for me the best video ever captured to show the relatively slow descent speed under CAPS, compare this to 65 knots of forward inertia and I think a massive factor in survivability rates.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jozarno, do you have the statistics on hand....namely, how many Cirrus have been built, are still flying. And how many have pulled the chute so far? Just wondering.
As for power lines as arrestors, the one you mention says "parachute tangled with power line wires", not that the aircraft was hung up on the wires, which was my question. There are wires and wires; we must be extra careful when approaching a field landing between trees as the wire can be nearly invisible. Its the high power lines that always worry me, whether to go over or under!
The lovely video of the parachute and cirrus slowly drifting to earth is quite convincing, also the video examining the cirrus with only a few bits knocked off on the ground....wheels, etc. HOWEVER. That parachute gently drifting down must have been on a gentle wind day. Strong wind day could be more interesting.
As for injuring people on the ground, very unlikely. Even ending up in a car park, the odds are excellent for the observers, time enough to get out of the way.
But if you would provide the statistic; the number of Cirrus built, relative to the number of chute pulls, would be most interesting.
As for power lines as arrestors, the one you mention says "parachute tangled with power line wires", not that the aircraft was hung up on the wires, which was my question. There are wires and wires; we must be extra careful when approaching a field landing between trees as the wire can be nearly invisible. Its the high power lines that always worry me, whether to go over or under!
The lovely video of the parachute and cirrus slowly drifting to earth is quite convincing, also the video examining the cirrus with only a few bits knocked off on the ground....wheels, etc. HOWEVER. That parachute gently drifting down must have been on a gentle wind day. Strong wind day could be more interesting.
As for injuring people on the ground, very unlikely. Even ending up in a car park, the odds are excellent for the observers, time enough to get out of the way.
But if you would provide the statistic; the number of Cirrus built, relative to the number of chute pulls, would be most interesting.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
There have been about 5500 Cirrus built and I believe almost all are still flying although I don't know exactly how many.
By the way, that includes aircraft repaired after CAPS activations!
Here is a history of all CAPS activations:
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
It's on the COPA web site but I think it's accessible to non-members. If you can't open it, please let me know.
And while I'm at it, here is a detailed account of a CAPS pull over water:
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...e-bahamas.aspx
I chose this one because it is the best documented example.
You are right to point out the question of what happens in a deployment in high winds but, of course, those same winds will have a effect on a forced landing as well.
You may also find this video interesting:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYT1Us...ature=youtu.be
It is a discussion of how and when the system should be used by an instructor with 3000 Cirrus hours.
I hope this is useful!
There have been about 5500 Cirrus built and I believe almost all are still flying although I don't know exactly how many.
By the way, that includes aircraft repaired after CAPS activations!
Here is a history of all CAPS activations:
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
It's on the COPA web site but I think it's accessible to non-members. If you can't open it, please let me know.
And while I'm at it, here is a detailed account of a CAPS pull over water:
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...e-bahamas.aspx
I chose this one because it is the best documented example.
You are right to point out the question of what happens in a deployment in high winds but, of course, those same winds will have a effect on a forced landing as well.
You may also find this video interesting:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYT1Us...ature=youtu.be
It is a discussion of how and when the system should be used by an instructor with 3000 Cirrus hours.
I hope this is useful!
Last edited by Jonzarno; 11th May 2014 at 09:40. Reason: To add account of CAPS pull
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary,
5600 aircraft built. As of yesterday 55 airborne CAPS activations - so 1%.
That's the same percentage as the total number of BRS activations in all the aeroplanes and microlights that have been fitted with the system in the last 30 years or so.
There is always much nonsense spouted about Cirruses and CAPS. Every pilot who uses it after losing control in IMC is an idiot who should have had better training, while the comparable number of pilots who make exactly the same mistakes in other aircraft don't get called that - because they're dead. (And in America, their families often win huge damages from the aircraft manufacturers' liability insurers.) Every Cirrus pilot who uses the parachute rather than attempting a forced landing is an incompetent who shouldn't have got through basic training (I exaggerate just a little); but around 20% of the fatal accidents in high-performance singles are caused by attempted forced landings that didn't work out.
There have been 58 fatal Cirrus accidents which wouldn't have been fatal had the pilot used CAPS. 120 people died. I wonder if among those 58 there was, perhaps, one pilot who was subconsciously influenced by what he had read on internet forums and tried to pull off a forced landing or recover control, because that's what real pilots do?
Next month's Flyer magazine has a feature exploring CAPS in some depth.
5600 aircraft built. As of yesterday 55 airborne CAPS activations - so 1%.
That's the same percentage as the total number of BRS activations in all the aeroplanes and microlights that have been fitted with the system in the last 30 years or so.
There is always much nonsense spouted about Cirruses and CAPS. Every pilot who uses it after losing control in IMC is an idiot who should have had better training, while the comparable number of pilots who make exactly the same mistakes in other aircraft don't get called that - because they're dead. (And in America, their families often win huge damages from the aircraft manufacturers' liability insurers.) Every Cirrus pilot who uses the parachute rather than attempting a forced landing is an incompetent who shouldn't have got through basic training (I exaggerate just a little); but around 20% of the fatal accidents in high-performance singles are caused by attempted forced landings that didn't work out.
There have been 58 fatal Cirrus accidents which wouldn't have been fatal had the pilot used CAPS. 120 people died. I wonder if among those 58 there was, perhaps, one pilot who was subconsciously influenced by what he had read on internet forums and tried to pull off a forced landing or recover control, because that's what real pilots do?
Next month's Flyer magazine has a feature exploring CAPS in some depth.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one pilot who was subconsciously influenced by what he had read on internet forums and tried to pull off a forced landing or recover
Many miss the point on this thread. It is not that the BRS is any way a poor system, until recently my view was the Cirrus fleet appeared to good, reliable and serious pieces of kit. It is not the fact that pilots utilise the system. It is in place, so why not use it.
The nub of the argument/ debate, is the premise that pilots can, have, and will, get into situations, knowing the BRS is behind them, that they should NOT have gotten into in the first place. Ah, lovely glass panel, Ah, full GPS, Ah, full autopilot, Ah, a chute if it goes pear shaped. I AM SAFE.
Eh, no, what about recurrent and purchase training. I understand that this is perhaps anecdotal, but to me, that is where the debate lies. It appears to me that a lot of these chute pulls are done as almost a knee jerk, rather than suss out the issue, and if I can, land it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly - and hopefully - you are right, and none of the 58 pilots who died when they could have saved themselves were influenced by reading that people who use CAPS should have been able to recover without it. But psychological research into priming for certain behaviours suggests that the risk exists, even for people who don't need to get out more.
Do you have some examples of CAPS pulls which are "almost a knee jerk, rather than suss out the issue, and if I can, land it"? There might be one, but I don't know of it. There are, however, lots of examples of Cirrus pilots trying to "suss out the issue", then dying in the crash - using CAPS long after it could possibly save them, or just crashing without trying to use it.
I agree with you fully about training, and it's impossible to dispute that lots of Cirrus pilots have got into trouble flying into situations that they should either have avoided, or been able to cope with. But sadly the same is true of pilots of any other aircraft - just for them and their passengers, the penalty is often death.
Do you have some examples of CAPS pulls which are "almost a knee jerk, rather than suss out the issue, and if I can, land it"? There might be one, but I don't know of it. There are, however, lots of examples of Cirrus pilots trying to "suss out the issue", then dying in the crash - using CAPS long after it could possibly save them, or just crashing without trying to use it.
I agree with you fully about training, and it's impossible to dispute that lots of Cirrus pilots have got into trouble flying into situations that they should either have avoided, or been able to cope with. But sadly the same is true of pilots of any other aircraft - just for them and their passengers, the penalty is often death.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right to point out the question of what happens in a deployment in high winds but, of course, those same winds will have a effect on a forced landing as well.
Landing into a 30kt headwind in a forced landing will give a very low forward speed.
Being carried horizonally at 30 kts into a hard object and we all know the damage a 30mph head on crash into a solid object does in a car.
This is really the point I am making! Yes the chute is an amazing leap forward in safety giving another option to the pilot to add to his skills.
Part of those skills are knowing when to pull and when not to pull.
I do NOT agree that people on the ground are safe from a descending aircraft under a chute. Without doubt there will be a fatality caused by a chuted aircraft landing on somebody or causing a multiple road traffic collision.
Then that pilot will have to live with the fact that did he really need to pull?
While an aircraft is gliding down the pilot has full control of where it goes or into what. He also has control of whether he stalls or not! Again it comes back to solid piloting skills and not plane drivers using technology to cover up a lack of those skills chuted he has no control whatsoever.
So for me the chute is a fantastic advance in potential safety and the Cirrus is a dream machine but with that advancement comes potential problem.
Being lured into conditions the pilot is not capable of is one.
I know for a fact that I dont trust piston singles any distance on dark nights.
With the Cirrus I would definately be tempted to fly night cross countries as I know I have a way out.
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do NOT agree that people on the ground are safe from a descending aircraft under a chute. Without doubt there will be a fatality caused by a chuted aircraft landing on somebody or causing a multiple road traffic collision.
Then that pilot will have to live with the fact that did he really need to pull?
Then that pilot will have to live with the fact that did he really need to pull?
Nothing can be guaranteed in this world except death and taxes and any outcome of any accident is possible in theory. But history to date does demonstrate that pulling is preferable to not pulling.
You are obviously a very experienced pilot and, as I've said before: please feel free to make your own decisions about your own flying, and if you won't listen to me: listen to this 3000 hours in type Cirrus instructor:
If that isn't enough, watch the interviews in this video:
By the way: one of the pilots interviewed is the one you called an "idiot" in your earlier post.....
As I say: you make your own decisions about your flying: what worries me is the potential influence of what you write here on inexperienced pilots who may not be as good or experienced as you.
If one of them dies following your advice, then that's something YOU may have to live with.......
Last edited by Jonzarno; 11th May 2014 at 17:05. Reason: Wrong link to first video. Doh!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
Very emotive writing
But as you say nothing is guaranteed. I would rather pilots made that pull or not to pull based on solid flying skills and not on panic decisions because they are in a situation they should not be in.
Remember most pilots do not have that luxury choice! Engine failure and they are going down.
It is then up to their piloting skills whether they pull off a forced landing.
There is a slight simularity to the second engine in a light twin.
Again the second engine gives you more choices with more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice.
But Jonzarno who is being critical of the Cirrus or the chute? Certainly not me I have sung its praises but with a caveat.
I see pitfalls which you seem blinkered to acknowledge or discuss in what comes over as all in the garden is rosy attitude when its not! As for my comments of an idiot it reffered to pulling the chute because of water in the static system. If that is the case then I would seriously question the judgement of the pilot above. If not and as you claim he had a complete panel failure then Cirrus have a major problem.
Pace
Very emotive writing
But as you say nothing is guaranteed. I would rather pilots made that pull or not to pull based on solid flying skills and not on panic decisions because they are in a situation they should not be in.Remember most pilots do not have that luxury choice! Engine failure and they are going down.
It is then up to their piloting skills whether they pull off a forced landing.
There is a slight simularity to the second engine in a light twin.
Again the second engine gives you more choices with more choices comes the option to make the wrong choice.
But Jonzarno who is being critical of the Cirrus or the chute? Certainly not me I have sung its praises but with a caveat.
I see pitfalls which you seem blinkered to acknowledge or discuss in what comes over as all in the garden is rosy attitude when its not! As for my comments of an idiot it reffered to pulling the chute because of water in the static system. If that is the case then I would seriously question the judgement of the pilot above. If not and as you claim he had a complete panel failure then Cirrus have a major problem.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea how many innocent people are killed or seriously injured by GA on the ground?
I suspect incredibly rare, in the last decade no one to date has been injured on the ground due to a CAPS pull and inevitably at some point in the future that will happen but still strikes me as a virtually neglible risk, compared to example driving a car and hitting a pedestrian.
When pulling the Chute in ideal conditions with time on his side the Pilot would endevour to glide to the most open suitable land possible to pull the chute once other avenues are exhausted.
In IMC or other emergencies I guess its more of a Lottery.
Looking at the Cirrus accident rates there has been a surprising and relatively high proportion of Instructors and High Time experienced Pilots that have persihed and there are figures that seem to bear out time on type appears to be more important than total hours. No I can not explain this and do not have the figures to hand.
The strong wind argument is very valid and above an estimated 35 knot ground speed I certainly would now consider a forced landing as being a viable option subject to terrain and other conditions. (and something I did modify my SOP as a result of debating the whole topic on here and COPA)
I suspect incredibly rare, in the last decade no one to date has been injured on the ground due to a CAPS pull and inevitably at some point in the future that will happen but still strikes me as a virtually neglible risk, compared to example driving a car and hitting a pedestrian.
When pulling the Chute in ideal conditions with time on his side the Pilot would endevour to glide to the most open suitable land possible to pull the chute once other avenues are exhausted.
In IMC or other emergencies I guess its more of a Lottery.
Looking at the Cirrus accident rates there has been a surprising and relatively high proportion of Instructors and High Time experienced Pilots that have persihed and there are figures that seem to bear out time on type appears to be more important than total hours. No I can not explain this and do not have the figures to hand.
The strong wind argument is very valid and above an estimated 35 knot ground speed I certainly would now consider a forced landing as being a viable option subject to terrain and other conditions. (and something I did modify my SOP as a result of debating the whole topic on here and COPA)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for my comments of an idiot it reffered to pulling the chute because of water in the static system.
But picture the scenario. He had taken off in low IMC - 400ft ceiling. Almost as soon as he entered the clouds, the VSI, then the altimeter, and the ASI started giving contradictory indications, and I believe there was also a problem with the attitude indicator (this was a first generation Cirrus with traditional gauges). The pilot was confused, frightened, not sure if he was climbing or descending, and was at low altitude in IMC.
Static blockage followed by an immediate takeoff into IMC is not an easy failure to deal with. To call an 800 hour private pilot an idiot for using his aircraft parachute in such a situation is simplistic. Sure, he made a mistake, but plenty of much more experienced pilots have done the same, and died.
To give just one example, Aeroperu flight 603. A Boeing 757 with a 22,000 hour captain and 8,000 hour first officer. They crashed into the ocean shortly after taking off from Lima, having mis-identified and failed to cope with a blocked static system.
The strong wind argument is very valid and above an estimated 35 knot ground speed I certainly would now consider a forced landing as being a better option subject to terrain.
If you have a 35kt wind on the ground, it's likely to be over 50kt at 500ft above the ground. Making an accurate glide approach in those conditions is going to be very difficult, and the chances of getting it wrong are high.
Let's say you're having a really good day and everything goes just perfectly to plan. You flare to land into the wind at 70kt - so a groundspeed of 35kt. You have exactly the same energy to dissipate as the aircraft travelling downwind at 35kt under its parachute. And, of course, the airbag seatbelts in the Cirrus are there to lower the risk of injury in just such a situation.
On the other hand, if something goes a bit wrong - wind shear causes you to land one field short with the nose down as you tried to regain airspeed, or your landing site turned out to be 30 degrees offset from the surface wind direction (which will probably be 30 degrees different from the wind at altitude), or in your fear at trying to pull off a difficult forced landing in a plane which glides as badly as an SR22 you cross the hedge at 90kt not 70kt, or due to the strong wind you misjudge your approach to the landable field.... suddenly the parachute arrival looks infinitely preferable. But it will be too late, and you might become the 59th Cirrus pilot to die in a situation where you could have lived if you'd used the parachute.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adrian all I am saying is it is factor to consider and subject to terrain and many other factors a decision is to be made by the pilot.
Being dragged by a massive parachute would be no fun either and it is for each of us to weigh up what we think the safest option.
Many on COPA would factor in strong winds to their decision making, At what wind speed in general would you consider for yourself it would become a factor to consider a forced landing as opposed to a chute pull with what appear's reasonable terrain below?
Being dragged by a massive parachute would be no fun either and it is for each of us to weigh up what we think the safest option.
Many on COPA would factor in strong winds to their decision making, At what wind speed in general would you consider for yourself it would become a factor to consider a forced landing as opposed to a chute pull with what appear's reasonable terrain below?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have to be an extremely strong surface wind, in an area with an abundance of suitable landing sites for me to consider not using CAPS.
The Cirrus I fly (SR22 turbo - not mine, unfortunately) has been modified with a 4 blade MT prop. Its glide performance is abysmal, and it would take a combination of skill and luck to glide it to a successful landing. I did some of my FAA CPL training in it, and the required 180º glide approach to a precision landing was extremely difficult even in good conditions. In a forced landing I'd rate the risk of a high energy crash to be very high and would would prefer to take my chances being dragged a bit by the chute on the ground.
The Cirrus I fly (SR22 turbo - not mine, unfortunately) has been modified with a 4 blade MT prop. Its glide performance is abysmal, and it would take a combination of skill and luck to glide it to a successful landing. I did some of my FAA CPL training in it, and the required 180º glide approach to a precision landing was extremely difficult even in good conditions. In a forced landing I'd rate the risk of a high energy crash to be very high and would would prefer to take my chances being dragged a bit by the chute on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but having watched that great advertising video (obviously produced by Cirrus) I'm still not convinced! They keep banging on about the lives saved by the chute, but how many of those sixty something may have survived anyway by either doing a successful forced landing or not flying when they would not have if in a "conventional" aircraft? Like Pace, I don't knock the system as such and would certainly use it if all else failed (I also concede some of those who've died flying Cirri would have survived if they'd used the chute). It's the blinkered "I will survive if I pull the handle" attitude that gives me the shivers! A perfectly nice aeroplane but for one designed from the outset to be so very safe, it doesn't "seem" to have worked? I'm not saying it's unsafe, but it's not the panacea they seem to be trying to portray in that video.
That in response to Pace's point about a pilot living with the fact that they may kill someone on the ground? Ok, nobody wants to die and yes you could kill someone on the ground just as easily in a forced landing or loss of control ... but at least you would know you tried (or die knowing so). You seem to be saying that if you kill someone on the ground having saved yourself that at least you're alive? .... Hmmmm! I hope you didn't mean it quite like that ... It's a nightmare scenario that some poor sod will face one day I am sure. Not their fault of course and I certainly wouldn't think anyone would blame them. Not a good pilot survival outcome to use to make your point though 
SS
Live with the fact? Yes. And far too many pilots have already died with the fact that they didn't pull when they really, really needed to.
SS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how many of those sixty something may have survived anyway
What is indisputable is that more people than have been "saved" by their parachute have died because they didn't use it. 58 Cirrus pilots were sure they could recover a bad situation. They were wrong, and they died. And they took over 60 passengers with them.
58 Cirrus pilots were sure they could recover a bad situation. They were wrong, and they died. And they took over 60 passengers with them.