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 15th May 2014, 17:23
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
However you seem to be proud of the fact that you flew that jet in circumstances where any further malfunction would have put you in a very ugly situation. Personally I think you were foolish.
BPF

Why would I be proud of the fact! It is what any competent IFR pilot should be able to do and is tested to do.
I can assure you I have a lot more demanding experiences than hand flying an ILS As for being foolish thats your opinion and you are unaware of the circumstances! The point I was making is you cannot trust pilot aids as they have a habit of letting you down!

What if you missed and diverted to another airfield? In 20000 feet of solid cloud with a fair bit of icing and still had another failure? What if your diversion airfield was 400 overcast is that more manageable than 200 overcast?

for me there is no difference hand flying to 200 feet as to 400 feet its whether you are visual at minima to make a landing. If not you miss and then go somewhere else. you are talking absolute rubbish which is unusual for you.

But a lot of the skills that were essential for flying with steam gauges are not relevant.
Adrian good luck to you for I sincerely hope you will not be in for a rude awakening and become yet another Cirrus chute pull statistic.

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 15th May 2014 at 17:45.
Pace is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 17:41
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
If I pull the chute because I can't fly a partial panel approach, or can't fly a DME or NDB procedure without cheating and using the GPS, I'll send you the insurance cheque!
Adrian N is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 17:51
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
good thats what I wanted to hear send the cheque to BPF he needs it more than me

pace
Pace is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 22:58
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
I think the difference is that few (any?) RV-8s come equipped with autopilots, glass cockpits and ballistic parachutes as standard, whereas the Cirrus does.
That is not the point.

The point is there are many high performance aircraft (in terms of speed, not avionics) and some of these aircraft can only be legally flown in VMC.

Which demonstrates that in both practical and legal terms we have no problem as a community flying high performance aircraft in VMC any more or less than we accept lower performance aircraft may be flown in VMC.

From my experience flying a Cirrus and many other aircraft there is no reason at all why the aircraft cannot be safely operated by a pilot restricted to VMC any more than any other aircraft of similar or lesser performance. I would go further and say there is nothing about a Cirrus which makes it more likely to find yourself in IMC than for any other aircraft type subject as always to the pilot have received adequate training on type.

Quite simply I believe it is just wrong to suggest its the aircraft fault when an involuntary incursion into IMC occurs, there is no more or less reason why a VFR pilot cant operate a Cirrus, than an RV8 than a Warrior.

Having flown with many pilots who are new to higher performance aircraft the "problem" they always have to conquer is the additional speed with which the scenery passes. The often reported nonsense that the Cirrus is difficult to hand fly and that the pilot requires and intimate knowledge of the avionics and autopilot is just that. It is a delight to hand fly for hours on end, and once you are accustom to a glass display the information is more intuitively presented and the pilot requires to interact very little with the avionics.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 23:20
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
If you are saying that I am wrong in suggesting that pilots are on top of hand flying IFR and that technology should not be used to make up for a lack of skills then we are talking a different language
Pace

Well I would say you are wrong.

I would like to see a lot of IFR pilots fly a difficult approach with partial panel. Yes, of course they should be able to do so, but how many can honestly say they could?

In reality, in the GA world even IFR pilots are on the whole not flying enough and are not in the SIM enough (or at all) to make these procedures second nature.

The technology comes to the rescue, and hopefully it comes to the rescue to the extent that difficult approaches, with multiple failures dont occur, but in reality, I would suggest they are really dangerous and the evidence is many pilots will really struggle if and when they happen. Even high time GA pilots that are current and flying IFR a lot end up killing themselves. Single pilot IFR in a typical light single is one of the hardest things we do, arguably much harder than operating in a multi crew environment with all the bells and whistles.

With an eye to the response likely I repeat I am not suggesting that in an ideal world every pilot should be on top of their hand flying, but I am suggesting safety is about recognising the reality of the real world, not how we would wish that world behaves.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 10:01
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
Fuji

Reading some of the defensive responses makes me feel that some think I am attacking the Cirrus and its BRS system.

I am not in the slightest and consider it to be the biggest safety enhancement in GA.

The idea that if all goes pear shaped with either yourself or the aircraft and rather than ending up as a hole in the ground the complete aircraft and its occupants can be safely lowered to the ground has to be a major advancement in potential safety.

The argument is not about the concept or the aircraft or the technology but its about when to use it ? and the dangers of having such a life saving option available actually drawing pilots into situations where they cannot cope and end up having to use the BRS.

Technology is great but I can only go by my own experience of a lot of hard IFR in a multitude of piston twins, jets and ferry work to warn others of the dangers of relying on technology to compensate for their own lack of instrument flying ability!
Loose the technology and you are left with yourself, your own instincts ,ability, spatial awareness and ability to pick up your game to what is required. Sit there like a frozen Cod and the chute is your only option.

So please do not misunderstand what I am saying.

When the manufacturer(Cirrus) will not condone the use of the chute simply stating consider its use if all other conventional options are not available and a second body are advising the use of the BRS for any engine failure almost even down to using it if you sneeze then its natural that when to pull will be discussed as there is NO official guidance.

The chute pull records would indicate that many could have been avoided by basic training and pilot skills.

I also accept that in light GA PPL flying there will be a huge variation in pilot ability, currency and experience hence even more important that pilots guard against the BRS luring them into conditions where they cannot cope and end up having to use the chute for reasons which could have been avoided by more concentration on basic instrument flying skills and not on how to press buttons.

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 16th May 2014 at 15:01.
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 10:27
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,218
Fuji,

I do think there is a bit if a pattern of some low experience pilots thinking that all of magic on the plane will let them fly through conditions they are not qualified for. Note this is not a comment on the airplane but on a limit set of pilots.

Ps happy to move this to any new thread - but I do think it is important to understand the human factors behind something like this accident
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 15:32
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Pace, let me quote a couple of your statements:
Originally Posted by Pace
Reading some of the defensive responses makes me feel that some think I am attacking the Cirrus and its BRS system.
Read on . . .
Originally Posted by Pace
When the manufacturer will not condone the use of the chute simply stating consider its use and a second body are advising the use of the BRS for any engine failure almost even down to a sneeze then its natural that when to pull will be discussed as there is NO official guidance.

The chute pull records would indicate that many could have been avoided by basic training and pilot skills.
Seems your choice of words mis-states, and for effect attacks, both Cirrus and COPA positions on the use of the parachute.

"Simple stating consider its use"?

The POH, as well as several other Cirrus training documents, emphasize the use of the Cirrus parachute for loss of control situations and avoiding landings where safety is not assured. For spins, it says this: "Because the SR22 has not been certified for spin recovery, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) must be deployed if the airplane departs controlled flight. Refer to Section 3 – Emergency Procedures, Inadvertent Spiral/Spin Entry." For inadvertent spiral dive, it says "In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not assured, immediately deploy CAPS. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment information." For forced landings, it says "If flight conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and landing considerations."

Seems more thoughtful than simple, and more emphatic than consider.

"Advising the use of the BRS for any engine failure almost even down to a sneeze"?

Rhetorical flourish? Setting up a stalking horse? Or your interpretation for an attack that diminishes substantial effort?

Check the investigation reports for "sneeze" and you won't find it. Check COPA safety presentations for "sneeze" and you won't find it.

What you will find is the estimation that 120 people have died in scenarios similar to survivable parachute pulls. VFR-in-IMC. Mechanical failures. Avionics failures. Avoiding off-airport landings. How can we get into the minds of Cirrus pilots that they need to think differently in emergencies, since they have an option of abandoning recovery and pulling the parachute handle?

For the record, in the past 6 months, Cirrus pilots have had 1 fatal accident and 7 survivable parachute deployments:

Brazil -- pilot presumed dead in the interior since no aircraft has been found (1 fatality)
Brazil -- pilot avoided off-airport landing after loss of engine power (3 survivors)
West Virginia, US -- pilot avoided off-airport landing after engine failed to respond to go-around power (1 survivor)
France -- pilot avoided off-airport landing at night after loss of engine power (2 survivors)
Idaho, US -- pilot avoided off-airport landing during emergency descent following catastrophic engine failure (2 survivors)
Colorado, US -- pilot avoided off-airport landing in mountains during icing encounter (1 survivor)
Mexico -- pilot avoided off-airport landing in desert after loss of engine power (1 survivor)
Australia -- pilot avoided off-airport landing after loss of control (3 survivors)

No sneezes. 15 survivors.

Some situations could have been avoided by training and better judgment. COPA sees over 400 of COPA pilots (about 13% of our membership) attending recurrent training, over 500 attending decision-making seminars, and about 1,500 credits issued for the FAA Wings program. The Cirrus training network has expanded and the messages delivered more consistently. All this in a general aviation context that does not require more than a flight review every 24 months.

However, one consideration of thoughtful people is that the penalty for poor aeronautical decisions should not be death.

And before you get to amped up about avoiding off-airport landings, please be advised that Adrian researched this. He looked at the last 100 fatal accidents in each of Bonanza and Mooney aircraft, both comparable high-performance single-engine piston aircraft to the Cirrus fleet. He found about 20% of the fatal accidents in each type happened during off-airport landings. Good things to avoid, eh?

So, yes, Pace. I think your choice of rhetoric does attack those who have contributed to this significant reduction in Cirrus fatalities -- 1 in the past 6 months. Less than 1.00 fatal accidents in 100,000 flying hours in the past 12 months.

Cheers
Rick
-----
COPA Aviation Safety Chair

Last edited by sdbeach; 17th May 2014 at 19:57.
sdbeach is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 15:43
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
SDBeach

If the chute pull record is now so positively established is it not about time that Cirrus add the recommendations to the POH and officialise its use?

Surely to stick with their previous stance given the favourable BRS evidence is itself now negligent!
Passing the buck to COPA really is not on.
I will also add that I am taking 50 hrs in a Cirrus starting late june! Hardly likely if I was against the aircraft or its concept.

I am also open to persuasion on where and when to use the chute so forgive my slight journalistic interrogation postings on when the chute should be pulled.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 15:46
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Pace, I see you edited the paragraph that I quoted. So let me address your edited thought:
Originally Posted by Pace
When the manufacturer(Cirrus) will not condone the use of the chute simply stating consider its use if all other conventional options are not available and a second body are advising the use of the BRS for any engine failure almost even down to using it if you sneeze then its natural that when to pull will be discussed as there is NO official guidance.
I wonder what "condone" means to you? Have you read the Cirrus materials? Are you relying upon memory or other sources?

In my reply, I quoted several statements from the manufacturer (Cirrus) in their regulatory document, rev A10 of the Cirrus SR22 Pilot Operating Handbook.

Do you agree that those statements go beyond your criticism? Would you now change your position?

There is lots of official guidance. For all Cirrus pilots. From Cirrus. From COPA. From CSIPs. Even officially from insurance underwriters. One went so far as to say "Pull! I would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate!" Underwriters give discounts for participation in the safety programs conducted by the "second body," COPA. And members of that organization show up in accidents much less frequently than you would expect if all Cirrus pilots were the same. Participation has its privileges.

Pace, if you stay on the issue of training and decision-making, then we can have a productive dialog. When you stray over the line into mis-stating positions and denigrating the complexity of decisions to deploy a whole-airframe parachute, then your misstatements and rhetorical flourishes deserve attention.


Originally Posted by Pace
If the chute pull record is now so positively established is it not about time that Cirrus add the recommendations to the POH and officialise its use.

Surely to stick with their previous stance given the favourable BRS evidence is itself now negligent!
Passing the buck to COPA really is not on
Good grief! Did you read what Cirrus has put into it's recommendations?

And do you have any idea of the way plaintiff's attorneys use your logic of negligence to sue Cirrus? "Ah, members of the jury, you see, Cirrus now admits that the pilot should have pulled the parachute and my client followed their earlier guidance, so now Cirrus should be held liable for damages because my client died without using the parachute."

In my opinion, Cirrus has taken a courageous step in strengthening the guidance for pilots on the use of the parachute. But even those steps seem to trigger your attack that it is "now negligent."

The phrase "No good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind.

Cheers
Rick

Last edited by sdbeach; 17th May 2014 at 19:58.
sdbeach is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 16:06
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
SDBeach

I am not up to date on what Cirrus have recently added to the POH in regards to advice on use of the BRS.

i was aware of a previous clip regarding engine failure which advised gliding to a suitable landing site and performing a standard FL and ONLY to CONSIDER the BRS if no suitable landing site was available.

The recommendations from many here is to use the chute for every engine failure as standard practice regardless of being over built up areas or otherwise.
Sadly one day a Cirrus will pull over built up areas rather than gliding clear and will cause a multiple road collision or injury/death to someone on the ground.

If Cirrus have now changed their policy regarding engine failure then please post the new recommendations.

Also consider an engine failure is more likely to happen soon after takeoff when the engine is most stressed has consideration been made regarding pulling at below recommended safe chute altitudes.

finally what are COPA and Cirrus recommendations in strong wind conditions? We all know the damage caused to a car in a 30mph crash into a solid object a car has far better crash protection than an aircraft with a large lump of engine in front of the pilots.

what is the COPA attitude regarding a descending aircraft moving not just vertically but horizontally at 30 to 40 KTS?

Surely that 30 to 40 KTS would suit an in control FL into wind better than under a chute?

Again its not to much to ask for official guidance or is it? These are valid points!!!

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 16th May 2014 at 18:26.
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 17:18
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Pace
Again its not to much to ask for official guidance or is it? These are valid points and a head in the sand attitude is not acceptable
Are you kidding me? "Head in the sand"? Another attack . . .

And did you acknowledge that I quoted three paragraphs of guidance from the Cirrus SR22 POH?


Cheers
Rick

Last edited by sdbeach; 17th May 2014 at 19:58.
sdbeach is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 18:26
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
OK

Have removed the H in the S bit

if you stay on the issue of training and decision-making, then we can have a productive dialog.
I think all my questions regarding engine failure fit the above ?
For forced landings, it says "If flight conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and landing considerations."
seems very like the previous extraction I saw from the FM do you have section10? but still very different from the advice posted here to use the CAPS for literally any engine failure

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 18:32
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,928
I think it is time to put a fork into this thread, it is done like dinner.......
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 19:08
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
Safety action
As a result of discussions arising from this accident and others, the CAA is
considering enhancing publicity to the GA community concerning the operation
of light aircraft equipped with advanced avionic and ballistic recovery systems.
CAA conclusion and why these discussions are not a waste of time as BPF appears to think

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 20:22
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 714
I think it is time to put a fork into this thread, it is done like dinner.......
I sincerely hope not, seems like a lot of good debate, everybody is free to participate or ignore.
007helicopter is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 21:26
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
Having flown with many pilots who are new to higher performance aircraft the "problem" they always have to conquer is the additional speed with which the scenery passes. The often reported nonsense that the Cirrus is difficult to hand fly and that the pilot requires and intimate knowledge of the avionics and autopilot is just that. It is a delight to hand fly for hours on end, and once you are accustom to a glass display the information is more intuitively presented and the pilot requires to interact very little with the avionics
Fuji

I timed the roll rate on an SR22 and it had the same roll rate as a Firefly which is an aerobatic machine.
A delight to fly but I could see it would be quite easy for an inexperienced pilot to over bank especially without visual reference.

but this does beg the question does the Cirrus with all the technology pilot aids and BRS lure pilots into situations they cannot handle?

it also emphasises the fact that those systems should compliment flying skills and not cover up a lack of those skills

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 21:59
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Pace asked:
Originally Posted by Pace
does the Cirrus with all the technology pilot aids and BRS lure pilots into situations they cannot handle?
I'm certain that some Cirrus pilots are lured into situations they cannot handle. But not many.

The number of Cirrus fatal accidents with low-time pilots (pilots with less than 200 hours total time) numbers only 5 out of 104 fatal accidents in 5,600 aircraft:

Park Falls, WI, USA -- during transition training with instructor impacted a river short of the runway, likely wind shear during a simulated engine out

Manhattan, NY, USA -- during a flightseeing tour of the East River with instructor, failed to maneuver in airspace only delimited by purple lines on a chart

Front Royal, VA, USA -- during a night departure when pilot took off on a runway noted as N/A for night operations, then got a terrain alert and overcontrolled the airplane

Cherbourg, France -- loss of control during night flight to Jersey

English Channel -- this accident, loss of control during maneuvering in reported fog and low ceilings mid-channel

So, some, but not many.

In two of them, there were instructors in the right seat. In the other three, one wonders what scenarios were used by their instructors to impart good understanding of their envelope of experience.

Certainly, the Cirrus standardized instructor pilot program (CSIP) emphasizes scenarios to promote better understanding of what pilots might be tempted to do on their own. Cirrus and COPA are both sensitive to and active about the lure of technology to pilots during transition and ab initio training.


Cheers
Rick

Last edited by sdbeach; 17th May 2014 at 19:59.
sdbeach is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 22:08
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,993
Rick

I know when i start flying a Cirrus I will be lured into flying at night in one

Something I am not comfortable doing in a conventional piston single! i never do anything in aviation without an " OUT" night flying gives me no outs in a conventional aircraft if the engine goes bang.
The BRS would soooo I would be LURED by that wicked woman

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 23:21
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
Pace seriously what cirrus have to say about the use of the chute is a diversion. You know the legal constraints and that is why they go so far and no further.

I agree with you i would fly a cirrus at night, not because of the chute, but because the risk of an engine failure is so very small. For entirely irrational reasons i still dont feel comfortable but the chute just tips the balance. Probably ten years ago i wouldnt have wanted the chute. So thats reasonable scope for a personal judgement call. It is not so much the chute lures you into something you wouldnt do, more it massages your irrationality for ignoring statistics you imagine you dont like.
Fuji Abound 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.