Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

Old 11th May 2014, 22:04
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 55
Posts: 1,195
Fuji Abound ...

Read my post again ... I acknowledge that fact! Cherry pick why don't you???

SS
shortstripper is offline  
Old 11th May 2014, 22:15
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 55
Posts: 1,195
What is it about this subject that makes the "pull the chute" brigade so blinkered to any argument against it???

Nearly all of the posts by pilots who question the wisdom of using the BRS at the slightest hint of trouble have acknowledged that it is a worthwhile safety device. All they do is question its use in certain circumstances and speculate that it may encourage slightly more reckless flying? Those who own or fly BRS equipped aircraft seem to defend the system without question as if it's faultless?

I'm starting to think there's some brainwashing going on somewhere?

Oh and yes .... This is one of those late night after wine postings that is a bit tongue in cheek. No doubt the Cirrus brigade will jump on me yet again!

SS
shortstripper is offline  
Old 11th May 2014, 22:29
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
When you sober up, perhaps try and give a coherent argument against it? In your post at 20:52 UK time you asked how Cirrus accident data compared to other aircraft. I gave you some clear data. Your follow-up makes it clear that I was wasting my time.
Adrian N is offline  
Old 11th May 2014, 23:23
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
Shortstripper has your earlier post be pruned?

My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.

I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.

Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 02:46
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,918
Originally Posted by tecman View Post
Folks, how about actually reading a bit of the thread? .
That's crazy talk

If people did that they might come across actual facts that get in the way of their preconceived notions
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 03:37
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 55
Posts: 1,195
Shortstripper has your earlier post be pruned?

My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.

I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.

Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
Twas an excellent Burgundy thanks and if you note the time I'm replying to this (just off to work) you'll realise I didn't have tooooo much No my earlier post wasn't "pruned" Sorry if I came across a bit spiky but your comment was addressed to my post and didn't appear as a general one.


When you sober up, perhaps try and give a coherent argument against it? In your post at 20:52 UK time you asked how Cirrus accident data compared to other aircraft. I gave you some clear data. Your follow-up makes it clear that I was wasting my time.
I meant against individual aircraft types ... say Piper PA28's, or Beech Bonanzas ect.

SS
shortstripper is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 08:48
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
I get the impression from a number of expert posters that the Cirrus is not a very good glider. (and my long ago experience with a Franklin engine has given me a strong preference for Lycoming!)

If all you power pilots simply shut down your engines and seriously took up gliding you would be much much safer! We seldom fly at night, in poor weather, or IMC.....though we do fly in interesting terraine.

And there is no pressure involved in persuading a reluctant family to come along for the ride...most cross country pilots fly alone!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 09:34
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wickford
Posts: 68
For me, I think the chute is probably the best safety item ever put in an aircraft and I for one would definitely have one if it could be put in my aircraft. I also like the Cirrus aircraft, there are quite a few of them at my airfield.


BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk. I have seen this with my own eyes down at my airfield with some (and I do say some not all) Cirrus pilots electing to take the chance when others will not even consider going up.


Also, the 'pull the chute at any sign of danger' attitude is fine and probably would save your life in many circumstances. But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.


I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
Steevo25 is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 13:36
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
I think some here take comments as against Cirrus aircraft. It's pilots or the chute and respond in a very defensive manner!
The fact is the Cirrus is the first mass produced aircraft to have a standard BRS and it is without doubt a huge contribution to safety! The idea of reliably lowering the aircraft and it's occupants to the ground is very appealing!
But that fact alone will generate discussion as some of the proposed uses fly I. The face of conventional training.
There are those who promote the chute for any engine failure!
I see that Cirrus do not back this stance as in the FM the procedure stated by Cirrus is to glide to a suitable landing area and to perform a FL!
Only with no suitable landing area do they quote " Consider" the use of the chute ! Yet many promote it's use for any situation where the pilot feels threatened!
We are talking about GA PPL pilots!
Their currency. Ability and experience vary enormously so extra diligence needs to be taken not to attempt trips they would not do in a conventional un chuted aircraft.
Flying in ones limits becomes even more important as well as the decision making of when and where to pull

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 15:16
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk.
There are two aspects to this:

Firstly, there is a chance that a reckless pilot might take a stupid risk because they think the chute protects them from that and I am sure that must have happened and it is wrong.

The way to address that is through training and mentoring and it is covered extensively in the transition training and CPPPs I have been banging on about in previous posts and has been discussed often on COPA.

Secondly, though, there is the reassurance it gives in “normal” operations, especially flying in IMC or at night. I remember doing my night rating in a Robin and wondering what I would really do if the engine failed.

I have never flown any aircraft other than a Cirrus in serious IMC, but I have to say that I wouldn't fancy needing a forced landing either on a dark night or under a 200-400 ft cloud base without knowing I have the chute. Obviously other pilots do fly their non-CAPS aircraft in those conditions, and I don't for a moment blame them for doing so, it's just my personal view.

But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.
In the Cheltenham pull thread which discussed this particular pull and which was was locked, this topic was covered very extensively. In that pull, the number of people who reported hearing the bang from the rocket, seeing the big parachute as well as watching, and even having time to get out a phone and film, the descent was remarkable.

I would draw the contrast between that and an engine out aircraft without a chute.

Also, remember that a light aircraft hitting at 60 KTS carries about ten times the energy of one landing under CAPS at 17 knots. Yes, in the former case you have an element of control that you don't have under the chute but, as the picture I posted in an earlier reply shows, that's by no means an assurance of a good outcome either.

I would suggest that using what altitude you have to glide away from vulnerable areas and then deploying the chute is almost always going to be the best (or at any rate the least bad!) outcome.

I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
That's quite right and it's why the training tries to integrate the use of CAPS into emergencies handling to ensure that the system is used when needed but also early enough in the incident for it to work properly. It's very much NOT "see a warning light: pull the chute”.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 15:19
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
Pace - you will recall we have been here before in terms of what Cirrus do and dont recommend.

I dont know the official reason but I suspect that Cirrus will "never" recommend using the chute in "all" circumstances because their lawyers have made clear that would not be a good idea. It wouldnt be a good idea because there isnt (or wasnt) the evidence to prove the chute will most likely result in a better outcome and, even if there is that evidence now, it would still be difficult to counter a legal argument that in a particular situation a conventional FL wouldnt have been better - with the prosecuting lawyers knowing that since the pilot had used the chute (and killed himself) no one could prove what would have happened if he hadnt pulled the chute - you get my drift.

I imagine to ever make the use of the chute a SOP would require a program of testing and certifying that the FAA could never approve and even if they did would be so costly as to make it economically nonviable.

So in the real world we are left developing a SOP from real world experience which is what COPA have done. As the evidence accumulates doubtless the recommendations will become more refined and statistically more reliable BUT no one will ever be able to safe the chute offers a guarantee and is ALWAYS the best alternative all that it might be possible to say is that statistically it is the best alternative. That is a very different matter.

So the chute doesnt offer certainty any more than a forced landing offers certainty - the only certainty on offer is an extra engine with enough power to enable the flight to be completed with a pilot competent to fly on just the extra engine while still relying on that engine to keep turning.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 12th May 2014, 20:46
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
Shortstripper

What is it about this subject that makes the "pull the chute" brigade so blinkered to any argument against it???
Blinkered? Pot? Kettle?

Nearly all of the posts by pilots who question the wisdom of using the BRS at the slightest hint of trouble have acknowledged that it is a worthwhile safety device. All they do is question its use in certain circumstances and speculate that it may encourage slightly more reckless flying? Those who own or fly BRS equipped aircraft seem to defend the system without question as if it's faultless?
No, we just try to point out what it can do and correct the misrepresentation of how it should be used that you keep parroting. We justify what we say by presenting evidence of what it has already done.

By contrast, it is interesting that the only time you have actually posted any evidence here, it actually destroyed the argument you were trying to use it to prove.

I'm starting to think there's some brainwashing going on somewhere?
Brain washing is really only useful if you have a dirty mind. Even then, it implies you actually have a brain to wash.......

Oh and yes .... This is one of those late night after wine postings that is a bit tongue in cheek. No doubt the Cirrus brigade will jump on me yet again!
If your vision is not too blurred, hopefully you will see the bulge in my cheek where my tongue is.....

Cheersh!
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 10:27
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
Lone Ranger

Thank you for your measured, considered and closely reasoned comment.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I fly over 200 hours a year as a GA pilot, have well over 1000 hours PIC IFR time, over 30% of it in actual IMC and have done a considerable amount of training both in aircraft and full motion simulators. I take all aspects of safety very seriously indeed.

I don't see how the fact that I choose to fly a Cirrus should reflect adversely on my attitudes or abilities as a pilot?

As for your comments on "measured arguments": please read all of the posts I have made to this thread, before my last one and tell me which of the arguments I have made has been less than measured and not supported by factual evidence even if you don't agree with what I say.

As for being a teenager again: I wish!!
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 13:02
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 55
Posts: 1,195
Jonzarno

I have the good grace to concede to valid points raised and anybody reading my posts can see that. By contrast it is interesting to note that all you ever do is dissect other peoples posts, take their points out of context to try and make it appear that they have no valid point.

I have never said the CAPS system is a bad thing in itself. I have never said the Cirrus is a bad aircraft. All I have asked is why it has such a poor safety record (or appears to have). That has pretty well been answered before you go off on one again btw. I have conceded to the point that I do not know how it compares to other types (individual comparable types not just other GA) but it does seem to have a high number of fatalities. Again this has been answered to a large extent by the fact that many of the accidents were early on and recent training has addressed many of the issues. I have actually started to appreciate the CAPS system a lot more by some of the things I've read on here. However, I still cannot accept the "I will die unless I pull the chute" argument that seems to come across from people like you. Anybody but a fool would not use a parachute as a last ditch "get out of jail card", but given all that I have read I would still go for a forced landing unless I seriously thought it was unwise.

If you want to carry on picking my posts to bits, you go right ahead, but I'm done.

SS
shortstripper is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 14:05
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,822
What is serious IMC anyway?

The wx is either shite or its lovely.

Your either flying IFR with your instrument head on be it IMC or VMC or your flying VFR in VMC.

When you start dicking about trying to take the easy VFR option and then getting caught with your privates hanging out is when your likely to screw it up.

Its a lesson I learned years ago always plan for the worst and 99% of the time it never happens. The 1% you end up in the poo you more than glad for putting the effort in on the planning side.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 17:23
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
Jock

Of course you're right, it is either VMC or IMC and you are either flying VFR or IFR, I chose the wrong words to make my point.

If you recall I was talking about risk homeostasis and people taking stupid chances because they have CAPS available.

What I was trying to say was that there are things I'm uncomfortable doing without CAPS as opposed to silly risks I'm prepared to take because I do have it.

One of those things is flying any SEP to minima in IMC because I don't fancy a forced landing in those conditions, although I know that plenty of people do it every day (and I don't criticise them for doing so at all!) and the chances of a failure at the wrong moment are small.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 17:26
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,822
What I was trying to say was that there are things I'm uncomfortable doing without CAPS as opposed to silly risks I'm prepared to take because I do have it.
This is the nub of the problem that some of us have that there is a risk shift having it on board.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 18:10
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Why do you see it as a problem? I'm not that comfortable flying most single engine aircraft at night, or above fog, or in thick IMC which goes all the way to the ground. I will do it, but CAPS makes it much more comfortable.

There's a risk shift with lots of things, really. I wouldn't want to fly a long distance over water with a single magneto. With 2, I'm happier. Pitot heat and alternate static make me more comfortable to fly in IMC. In-cockpit weather (in the States) makes me more comfortable flying on days when there might be embedded CBs. Etc. etc. CAPS is just another thing which lets you get stress-free use out of an aircraft.

Like Jonzarno, I'm happy to fly a Cirrus in lower IMC conditions than other aircraft. That's not really to do with CAPS - it's more because of the situational awareness that the avionics provide, the autopilot, the flight director, and the benign handling which makes it easy to transition to VMC at minimums and make a nice landing even in very unpleasant weather. I now fly a Mooney, and it is much harder work than the Cirrus - so my personal minimums are higher in it.

Despite the strong opinions that get expressed every time there is a Cirrus accident, there is no evidence in the accident data to suggest that Cirrus pilots are using CAPS to get out of situations that other pilots don't get into. For sure, some of them do stupid things - but sadly so do pilots of any other aircraft.
Adrian N is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 18:27
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 875
Jock

The point I was trying to make is that my stance of being uncomfortable to do things that many others do regularly without CAPS is actually a more conservative safety stance than theirs.

I stress again, firstly that I have no problem whatever with their decisions in those circumstances and, secondly, that I don't for a moment advocate using CAPS as an excuse to do something stupid.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 13th May 2014, 20:49
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,287
Like Jonzarno, I'm happy to fly a Cirrus in lower IMC conditions than other aircraft
This is now going round in circles. You are now actually answering, and confirming, the very points that some are making. Namely the knowledge that a BRS is on board, allows Cirrus flyers to, push the envelope, happy in the knowledge that if it goes wrong, pull the chute.

This, in my view, is fundamentally wrong.

I happen to drive a very fast Mercedes. I got there, by track driving, driving TVR, ie, I have experience. I have not totalled a high performance car yet.

The fact it has dual airbags, does not make me go berserk, and drive at the 215 mph, the car will do. If I did, I would no doubt, kill myself.

Same with the Cirrus issue, sooner or later, and by the looks of it, many have already, people will kill themselves. It appears by your comments, and the plentiful anecdotal evidence, that flying skills are being ignored, eroded, simply because a chute will save the day.

This cannot be right.
maxred is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.