The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[mad_jock]

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.

[Adrian N]

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.

[Jonzarno]

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.

[maxred]

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.

[Camargue]

I have been reading all this with interest, lots of valid points over the last few weeks and one thing strikes me.

If I was flying to imc minima, at night, over sea, mountains or some god forsaken part of the world I'd rather have 12 cylinders,(or maybe 8) 4 mags, 2 props and the potential of a nice smooth underside rather than a chute - which may, just when you need it, fail to deploy.

I may well be wrong but a pilot who can afford a Cirrus can afford a twin surely?

[Lone_Ranger]

Jonz...

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?

It doesn't, I never stated or implied that.
I made a comment on your attitude, not what aircraft you fly

I think, you don't actually realise how defensive you are of a position that comes from a combination of lack of experience and steadfast belief in a single safety being the only option.

[Adrian N]

Maxred, did you read the sentence after the one you quoted? The one which said that being happy to fly it in worse conditions than other aircraft has nothing to do with the parachute?

[Jonzarno]

Jonz...
Quote:
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?
It doesn't, I never stated or implied that.
I made a comment on your attitude, not what aircraft you fly

I think, you don't actually realise how defensive you are of a position that comes from a combination of lack of experience and steadfast belief in a single safety being the only option.

Thank you for explaining my attitude: I have often wondered what it is.

I am quite happy to stand on the experience and detailed knowledge of the CAPS system and it's history and the training associated with its use that I have gained to date, and on the merits of the arguments I have put forward supported as they are by facts, evidence and, as far as I know, pretty much all of the CSIPs who provide training on these aircraft. That's not being defensive, it's being assertive of a position that has strong evidential support in the face of repeated criticism that does not.

If you want to try to refute this by belittling me, rather than providing evidence to counter what I and others have said, I would suggest that is playing the man rather than the ball and I'm fine with that. I recall the same thing happening to Rick Beach in another CAPS related thread and I can't think of better company in which to be abused.

I repeat something I said in an earlier post: I'm not trying to convert the unconvertable here. I'm trying to stop an inexperienced Cirrus pilot from dying with a perfectly good parachute unused behind them because they are influenced by something written on a forum like this.

Thank you for helping me achieve that

[sdbeach]

Jonz...

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?

It doesn't, I never stated or implied that.
I made a comment on your attitude, not what aircraft you fly

I think, you don't actually realise how defensive you are of a position that comes from a combination of lack of experience and steadfast belief in a single safety being the only option.

Thank you for explaining my attitude: I have often wondered what it is.

Jonzarno, interesting excerpt quoted here. And I sense that it reveals the challenge in communicating effectively.

First, note how Lone_Ranger described the attitude of pilots who fly Cirrus aircraft, the position he thinks you are defending -- "a combination of lack of experience," and "belief in a single safety being the only option." Were those your words? Do they apply to one Cirrus pilot? Or most? Or all? Or were those his beliefs from your words?

I recall my psychology courses describing this as a projection -- attributing to others the undesirable qualities that one denies in oneself. It's something that I have recognized and dealt with in my career, so it's become easier for me to see it happen to others.

Folks, I've interacted with Jon and other COPA members who do not lack experience and do not believe in an "only option." So, the explanation by Lone_Ranger does not apply to Jon, IMHO.

Yet, here we are presented with those two items as our beliefs. Wrong.

When presented as a stalking horse, these beliefs belittle the dialog, and makes it easy to pursue an interminable debate.

The reality is that only 1 person has died in a Cirrus fatal accident in the past 6 months (actually, he is missing in the middle of Brazil and presumed to have died). In the same time frame, 13 people have survived when they landed under a Cirrus parachute.

I hope that sometime, the folks posting on this thread about an unnecessary chute pull would talk with those families and ask -- was it unnecessary to have them home for dinner?


Cheers
Rick

[funfly]

So, does the fact that most glider pilots wear parachutes mean that when they are considering landing out all they consider is jumping out and parachuting down?

Does the fact that my car has airbags mean that I drive without any regard to crashing?

Any device that offers an addition to saving life must be considered an advantage.

It is my opinion that those people on here who look upon additional safety devices as only for 'ninnies' or 'non macho' pilots represent the same attitude as those who used to wag their fingers at GPS guidance.

In the event of an emergency, the first consideration of any responsible pilot should be the saving of life using the best options available to him at the time. Having additional options fitted to an aircraft widens his/her choice of options.

[bartonflyer]

I now fly an aircraft with a ballistic parachute recovery system - not a Cirrus but a Flight Design CTLS.
For me, the issue is not so much encouraging me to "stretch the envelope" as under the EASA Permit to Fly the aircraft is limited to daytime, VFR only (even though I have an IR) but giving me confidence that should I conk out (and I'm 63) while say flying with a grandchild, wife, friend or other non-pilot - part of the safety brief will have been - turn the key off & pull the big red handle!

[Pace]

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

You are inadvertently arguing one of the points that worry me
Your minima on an approach should not be determined by whether you have an all singing and dancing glass cockpit or a conventional steam driven variety!
They should be treated exactly the same regardless with regard to minima.

what you are saying is that in the cirrus you are more confident to descend lower on an approach because of the situational awareness that aircraft gives you while with the conventional Mooney you are less confident and hence won't descend as low on the approach?

That to me says that the aircraft determines your minima not your flying skills fine while the all singing and dancing cockpit sings and dances but not so fine when the singing and dancing stops which take my word technology does let you down big time whether in light singles or even in the jets I fly.

I have had an autopilot and flight director failure in a steam driven Citation and had to hand fly down through a solid 20K of cloud to a 200 foot overcast and minima on RVR into Germany! My minima was the same as had it been a fully working singing and dancing state of the art biz jet. I am nothing special its what is expected for safe IFR flight.

The aircraft should compliment your skills not the other way around your skills set your minima in an IFR equipped aircraft not your technology

You are confirming the very point that technology is compensating for pilot skills and luring pilots into situations where they would not be comfortable without that technology.
that is a dangerous game! your points above in a very mild way others in a much more serious way and yes in the same way I am sure the BRS does lure pilots into a false sense of security making them fly in conditions they would be wary of in conventional aircraft.

I am no different as I know in my heart when I take up my 50 hrs Cirrus time I will be far more relaxed flying at night knowing I have the BRS than I would be in a conventional light single where I would turn away from a night flight of any distance.

Also as a pilot getting older it is a big comfort to know if the ticker goes bang my passengers have a relatively safe way of getting down

Pace

[Adrian N]

You are confirming the very point that technology is compensating for pilot skills and luring pilots into situations where they would not be comfortable without that technology.

No, not really. I'm saying that the Mooney is much harder work, and for a fairly inexperienced instrument pilot like me it makes sense not to plan to fly approaches down to 200ft in it. Slowing down to the very restrictive gear and flap speeds is hard work (and nobody's going to thank me for flying the whole approach at 80kt), there's no autopilot, no electric trim, and there are big trim changes when you add power for a missed approach. Add to that the (manual) retractable gear, cowl flaps and prop rpm control and the workload on a missed approach is much higher than a Cirrus - which has a good digital autopilot, easier speed control and much better avionics.

So while I'm sure I could fly an approach to minimums in the Mooney, it's something I would only do if I really had to. I'd be more likely to plan a flight to somewhere with better weather or to stay on the ground. In a Cirrus I've done it quite often - and while it's a serious business which needs a lot of concentration, it's much easier than the Mooney.

On the broader topic, I don't agree that pilots shouldn't use new technology to do things that they wouldn't be comfortable or competent to try with old technology. The world has moved on. Most new aircraft come with glass cockpits, WAAS GPS and digital autopilots which let suitably trained pilots get great utility out of GA aircraft. The GA industry needs a critical mass of pilots if it is remain economically viable. If we limit access to those who are good enough to fly NDB approaches on a partial panel of steam gauges, or other things which are similarly irrelevant to flying a modern GA aircraft, people won't do it; a large part of the industry will die, and the airports that serve it will close.

[Pace]

Adrian

Again what you are saying is it's ok for pilots to use technology to cover up their lack of skills ?
Very dangerous attitude to take as yes the technology makes life easy for all of us but it has a habit of letting you down at the worst moment!
I have been in this for long enough to tell you don't trust anything.

I have never said pilots should not use modern technology lucky you if you have an all singing and dancing machine BUT you have to be able to handle things when you loose that technology and not use the technology to cover up holes in flying ability especially IFR/IMC

I am sure you are a very competent guy but whatever limits you use in a steam driven 30 year old aircraft should be the same limits as you use in a 1 year old Gizmo machine.
If your going lower in the Gizmo machine then you are using (not you) technology to cover flying ability

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I will not fly single pilot IFR without and operating two axis autopilot and at least a portable GPS with a moving map display.

The autopilot lets me keep the big picture without having to mind the airplane every second and the GPS gives me accurate real time situational awareness.

The last time I flew an NDB approach in for real IMC conditions without some sort of GPS to provide final approach track guidance was 1994. I teach for the IFR rating so I can certainly fly a stand alone NDB airway/hold/approach, but you have got to be barking mad to think that I would actually go and do that for real, when better technology exists.

Bottom line for pilots have been properly trained and work at fully understanding the electronic magic and maintaining their skills modern technology makes flying easier, better and most importantly safer.

[Pace]

Bottom line for pilots have been properly trained and work at fully understanding the electronic magic and maintaining their skills modern technology makes flying easier, better and most importantly safer.

BP

I totally agree but are you endorsing Adrian having two sets of minima one for a Mooney and one for a Cirrus?
Of course we set off with an autopilot I did in a steam driven Citation to Germany with 20000 feet of icing clouds a 200 foot overcast and RVR on minima with a STAR to fly. The autopilot packed in as did the FD WHAT DO YOU DO THEN? Do you say well if the autopilot was working I would come down to 200 feet but now its not I will miss at 500 because I am not capable of holding it all together hand flown down to 200 without an autopilot?

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Single pilot in a high performance airplane and the autopilot fails I would go someplace that had better weather. If I had to fly a mins approach I would tell ATC that I wanted vectors to final and a long gate.

[bartonflyer]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

Single pilot in a high performance airplane and the autopilot fails I would go someplace that had better weather. If I had to fly a mins approach I would tell ATC that I wanted vectors to final and a long gate.

Or just pull the chute ......

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Pace

Adrian


I have had an autopilot and flight director failure in a steam driven Citation and had to hand fly down through a solid 20K of cloud to a 200 foot overcast and minima on RVR into Germany! My minima was the same as had it been a fully working singing and dancing state of the art biz jet. I am nothing special its what is expected for safe IFR flight.

Pace,

I am surprised you said the above. I thought that ILS minimums were determined partially be equipment. Certainly in my single crew aircraft, my legal minimums are lower when the autopilot is working than when it is not working (550 RVR with coupled autopilot 800 without). If I was in the US my minimums with enhanced vision would be lower than without. Additionally with two separate heading, attitude,airspeed, altitude, VSI systems, radar altimeter, flight director, coupled autopilot and windshield wipers I could (if qualified) go to cat II min, but without I can not.

So there are lots of examples where the regulator has determined aircraft equipment determines the minimum, pilot qualification alone is not sufficient. In this context it seems perfectly reasonable for a pilot to choose more conservative minimums in a less well equipped aircraft. And in fact outside cirrus arguments many people argue this. Such as singles should use a more conservative takeoff minimum (not fly at night, over large expanses of water, etc) and they should use twins if they want to do such activities - a clear case of increasing risk exposure with equipment.

I don't fly a BRS equipped aircraft, but the facts would suggest a higher survival rate for cirrus pilots who use the chute than twin pilots for the case of an inflight engine failure*. As such, it doesn't seem inherently stupid to view the BRS system as similar to a second engine with respect to mitigating the risk of an enroute or approach engine failure in IMC or over hostile terrain (but potentially less effective risk mitigation over remote terrain)

* on the basis there is a reasonable body of examples of twin operators who have not managed an engine out and I am not aware of a single Cirrus fatality (or bystander injury) from a chute pull following an engine failure (there are of course cirrus injuries and probably fatalities from EFATO incidents where the chute could not be pulled - but that is an intrinsic risk or a Single)

[Pace]

BPF

Or you might hand fly the STAR and approach because its good real practice
and because you have the confidence and ability to do it accurately
then the technology comes into its own to reduce your workload but always to compliment your skills as a pilot not to cover up a lack of those skills.



MM

Single pilot is different but that is in the equipment carried for the aircraft be certified as single pilot. The minima you use does not legally change if that autopilot packs up enroute.
i am sure in your sim work you will use the same minima for a hand flown procedure as you will for a coupled procedure.

Pace