The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Way more engine failures in the Cirrus, and every other GA airplane, were directly caused by the pilot than were situations where the engine actually failed with no warning and/or where the pilot was helpless to prevent the loss of power.
Flight training, and this forum, IMO spend way too much time on being the hero pilot after the engine failure instead of concentrating on the mundane, unsexy details that prevent the engine failing in the first place......
Flight training, and this forum, IMO spend way too much time on being the hero pilot after the engine failure instead of concentrating on the mundane, unsexy details that prevent the engine failing in the first place......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
One of my jets operates out of Leeds
always windy
Some airports ban single engine aircraft for those very reasons
Totally off topic but a comment to BPF the word Hero is grossly misused.
A Hero is someone who puts their wellbeing physically or mentally at threat on behalf of others.
I could be a fantastic race car driver when all four tyres blow at high speed on the motorway. Because of my superior skills as a driver I control the car and bring it to a stop on the hard shoulder.
I am an unwilling part of the event saving my own and others through those skills.
i am not a HERO.
i jump out of the car and run up the embankment only to turn around and see the car enveloped in flames. I run back and rip the doors open dragging my passengers out of the car and risking myself in the process. i am now a HERO
To me the Captain of the Hudson river ditching was not a Hero although he was described as such.
He was a very professional and capable pilot who pulled off a superb water ditching but he was
an unwilling part of the event i.e. he had that ditching whether he was alone in the aircraft or with 200 PAX in the back.
Had he stayed in a sinking aircraft getting everyone out at that point he is a Hero
just a word used to readily by the media and me being pedantic over its common use
Pace
One of my jets operates out of Leeds
always windy Some airports ban single engine aircraft for those very reasons
Totally off topic but a comment to BPF the word Hero is grossly misused.
IMO spend way too much time on being the hero pilot after the engine failure
I could be a fantastic race car driver when all four tyres blow at high speed on the motorway. Because of my superior skills as a driver I control the car and bring it to a stop on the hard shoulder.
I am an unwilling part of the event saving my own and others through those skills.
i am not a HERO.
i jump out of the car and run up the embankment only to turn around and see the car enveloped in flames. I run back and rip the doors open dragging my passengers out of the car and risking myself in the process. i am now a HERO
To me the Captain of the Hudson river ditching was not a Hero although he was described as such.
He was a very professional and capable pilot who pulled off a superb water ditching but he was
an unwilling part of the event i.e. he had that ditching whether he was alone in the aircraft or with 200 PAX in the back.
Had he stayed in a sinking aircraft getting everyone out at that point he is a Hero
just a word used to readily by the media and me being pedantic over its common use
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gliding down you have complete control. the space shuttle can glide in from space! If you fly into a brick wall its you who have done so.
Be constantly aware and don't fixate on landing at one point. If its not looking good go 45 degrees left or right and take one of the other areas you as a constantly aware pilot will have marked with you eagle eyes.
If I had such a failure over a City i would glide clear. If not possible or no landing site was available yes pull the chute because you have no choice.With a gliding aircraft you are in control pull the chute and you are no longer in control.
Come down into someones back garden on top of the pram with a baby in it and you live with that.
Be constantly aware and don't fixate on landing at one point. If its not looking good go 45 degrees left or right and take one of the other areas you as a constantly aware pilot will have marked with you eagle eyes.
If I had such a failure over a City i would glide clear. If not possible or no landing site was available yes pull the chute because you have no choice.With a gliding aircraft you are in control pull the chute and you are no longer in control.
Come down into someones back garden on top of the pram with a baby in it and you live with that.
You seem to have a remarkably large faith in your gliding and an unreasonable concern about parachuting. I say this on the basis of the relatively signficiant track record of property damage and personal injury caused by aircraft coming down after a powerplant failure or loss of control and the negligable incidents of injury or material damage from chute deployments over built up (or rural) areas in similar circumstances.
I can certainly agree that an attiude of 'I'll just pull the chute if it feel like too much' would be wrong, but I believe the facts are very clear that your odds of injurying/killing yourself and people on the ground are negligable in a chute pull compared to a forced landing.
In fact, I believe there is a specific case in the US, where a Cirrus with an engine failure elected to glide to a (nearly) empty beach rather than pull a chute. Unfortunately the beach jogger didn't get out of the way and the pilot didn't perfectly control his glide to avoid and the jogger - who was struck and killed by the gliding aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are discussing this topic and do not want to personalise this by whether I would pull off a FL or not. I am just as bad as anyone else in not practising these things until a check ride
It may well be that long term a fairly standard procedure maybe to use the chute for the majority of engine failures as statistics could point that way but I wonder how much those statistics are clouded by the fact that we do not practice FLs enough or in my case with twins practice engine failures enough ?
Again looking at the chute pull statistics many could have been avoided by basic piloting skills and there is a worry with all the technology available that pilots are forgetting those skills and relying more on technology to make up for a lack of those skills. A dangerous principal to follow.
But hey I am not promoting myself as some sort of SkyGod who is well on top of everything but arguing a point.
I have had a fair amount of experience and done a fair amount of stupid things in the course of getting that experience which luckily I have to date got away with others may not be so lucky.
Pace
It may well be that long term a fairly standard procedure maybe to use the chute for the majority of engine failures as statistics could point that way but I wonder how much those statistics are clouded by the fact that we do not practice FLs enough or in my case with twins practice engine failures enough ?
Again looking at the chute pull statistics many could have been avoided by basic piloting skills and there is a worry with all the technology available that pilots are forgetting those skills and relying more on technology to make up for a lack of those skills. A dangerous principal to follow.
But hey I am not promoting myself as some sort of SkyGod who is well on top of everything but arguing a point.
I have had a fair amount of experience and done a fair amount of stupid things in the course of getting that experience which luckily I have to date got away with others may not be so lucky.
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again looking at the chute pull statistics many could have been avoided by basic piloting skills and there is a worry with all the technology available that pilots are forgetting those skills and relying more on technology to make up for a lack of those skills. A dangerous principal to follow.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of accidents are caused by pilots with poor skills flying into situations which require a high level of skill to fly back out of; when they can't, they die.
my very concern that we need to guard against the technology and BRS Luring us into situations we are not equipped to handle without that technology , pilot aids and comfort of the BRS
From the accident report
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With both the Cirrus English Channel Cirrus fatal's it appears both were low time, both not instrument rated, both flying in IFR conditions, both lost control and perished.
With or without a chute these conditions seem a common killer in GA and I am not sure to what degree the chute Lures pilots or is a factor but it can not be ruled out.
What is clear that neither of these Pilots had the thought or mindset to recognize that they had lost control and use the one thing that could probably have given them a chance of survival (assuming they had a Dingy and suitable survival kit on board)
In the SIM from personal experience when overloaded and even in a dire situation the chute did not even enter my mind, this is also proven with many other Pilots and I hope a valuable learning point. Many Pilots have died with a perfectly good intact BRS Chute.
My SOP over water would be to use the Chute rather than attempt to land with a fixed under carriage.
With or without a chute these conditions seem a common killer in GA and I am not sure to what degree the chute Lures pilots or is a factor but it can not be ruled out.
What is clear that neither of these Pilots had the thought or mindset to recognize that they had lost control and use the one thing that could probably have given them a chance of survival (assuming they had a Dingy and suitable survival kit on board)
In the SIM from personal experience when overloaded and even in a dire situation the chute did not even enter my mind, this is also proven with many other Pilots and I hope a valuable learning point. Many Pilots have died with a perfectly good intact BRS Chute.
My SOP over water would be to use the Chute rather than attempt to land with a fixed under carriage.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
In answer to your last two posts:
Firstly, I think that 007Helicopter has it right in his last post.
Some further thoughts:
I think we agree that proper training and currency is the best way to avoid a pilot error accident. The sad fact, however, is that even the best trained and current pilots can occasionally make a potentially fatal error.
In the GA world, you only have to look at the two examples I posted earlier in this thread of the instructor in a DA 20 who died with his student in a failed forced landing, and Manfred Stolle, who was also a good and experienced pilot, who died trying to stretch a glide in his Cirrus. Both would almost certainly have been saved by BRS.
Sadly, there are seemingly endless others. And of course there are also plenty of examples of how the pros can get it wrong as well such as AF 447 and the recent Asiana landing accident.
To illustrate further the contrasting consequences of a mistake, let's look briefly at two similar recent GA accidents: the Gloucestershire CAPS pull and the twin that crashed in Jersey the report on which has just been published.
In both cases, the pilot made a mistake on an instrument approach. In one case the pilot had CAPS available and chose to use it. In the other, CAPS wasn't available, even if the potential window for its use was small, and both the pilot and his innocent passenger died.
Of course neither accident should have happened: after all, if you're an instrument rated pilot you should be able to fly these approaches safely consistently. But in both these cases something happened to make the pilot get it wrong. One died along with his passenger and the other lived. And these are by no means isolated examples of an accident type that has happened far too often across the entire GA fleet.
You may well be right about the circumstances of this accident, personally I think you probably are within the context set out by 007H in his post.
I just wish we were talking about a sheepish pilot pulled out of the Channel after a CAPS pull, rather than the tragic fatal outcome that actually happened. I also do not believe that this attitude is representative of most GA pilots whether they fly TAAs or not. It also begs the question as to whether he'd still have done the flight in a non-BRS aircraft. After all, he didn't actually use the chute (although there is evidence to suggest it deployed on impact).
I agree. Hence the need for proper transition and emergencies handling training of which the appropriate use of the BRS is an important part.
That said, did the technology and BRS "lure" the pilot of the twin that I quoted into his unsuccessful approach? Well he didn't have BRS and he knew his autopilot wasn't working before he took off, so I doubt it. Perhaps he was a little too bold? Who knows? But he wouldn't have been the first. Either way, I wish he'd had BRS available and used it!
As they rightly should. The correct operation and use of these systems is a major contributor to safety. Hence, again, the need for proper training on which I think we are agreed.
By the way: when you do your 50 Cirrus hours, are you planning to get any training from an experienced CSIP? Have you thought about going to the CPPP I recommended earlier in this thread? I'd recommend both highly!
In answer to your last two posts:
Firstly, I think that 007Helicopter has it right in his last post.
Some further thoughts:
A lot of accidents are caused by pilots with poor skills flying into situations which require a high level of skill to fly back out of; when they can't, they die.
In the GA world, you only have to look at the two examples I posted earlier in this thread of the instructor in a DA 20 who died with his student in a failed forced landing, and Manfred Stolle, who was also a good and experienced pilot, who died trying to stretch a glide in his Cirrus. Both would almost certainly have been saved by BRS.
Sadly, there are seemingly endless others. And of course there are also plenty of examples of how the pros can get it wrong as well such as AF 447 and the recent Asiana landing accident.
To illustrate further the contrasting consequences of a mistake, let's look briefly at two similar recent GA accidents: the Gloucestershire CAPS pull and the twin that crashed in Jersey the report on which has just been published.
In both cases, the pilot made a mistake on an instrument approach. In one case the pilot had CAPS available and chose to use it. In the other, CAPS wasn't available, even if the potential window for its use was small, and both the pilot and his innocent passenger died.
Of course neither accident should have happened: after all, if you're an instrument rated pilot you should be able to fly these approaches safely consistently. But in both these cases something happened to make the pilot get it wrong. One died along with his passenger and the other lived. And these are by no means isolated examples of an accident type that has happened far too often across the entire GA fleet.
that [Risk homeostasis] appears to be the reason behind the tragic channel Cirrus crash which has caused the CAA to look at high technology aircraft fitted with BRS?
I just wish we were talking about a sheepish pilot pulled out of the Channel after a CAPS pull, rather than the tragic fatal outcome that actually happened. I also do not believe that this attitude is representative of most GA pilots whether they fly TAAs or not. It also begs the question as to whether he'd still have done the flight in a non-BRS aircraft. After all, he didn't actually use the chute (although there is evidence to suggest it deployed on impact).
my very concern that we need to guard against the technology and BRS Luring us into situations we are not equipped to handle without that technology , pilot aids and comfort of the BRS
That said, did the technology and BRS "lure" the pilot of the twin that I quoted into his unsuccessful approach? Well he didn't have BRS and he knew his autopilot wasn't working before he took off, so I doubt it. Perhaps he was a little too bold? Who knows? But he wouldn't have been the first. Either way, I wish he'd had BRS available and used it!
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.
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.
By the way: when you do your 50 Cirrus hours, are you planning to get any training from an experienced CSIP? Have you thought about going to the CPPP I recommended earlier in this thread? I'd recommend both highly!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they rightly should. The correct operation and use of these systems is a major contributor to safety. Hence, again, the need for proper training on which I think we are agreed.
We are as one on your comments above
Pace
MJ
One of my jets operates out of Leeds always windy
Some airports ban single engine aircraft for those very reasons
Totally off topic but a comment to BPF the word Hero is grossly misused.
A Hero is someone who puts their wellbeing physically or mentally at threat on behalf of others.
I could be a fantastic race car driver when all four tyres blow at high speed on the motorway. Because of my superior skills as a driver I control the car and bring it to a stop on the hard shoulder.
I am an unwilling part of the event saving my own and others through those skills.
i am not a HERO.
i jump out of the car and run up the embankment only to turn around and see the car enveloped in flames. I run back and rip the doors open dragging my passengers out of the car and risking myself in the process. i am now a HERO
To me the Captain of the Hudson river ditching was not a Hero although he was described as such.
He was a very professional and capable pilot who pulled off a superb water ditching but he was
an unwilling part of the event i.e. he had that ditching whether he was alone in the aircraft or with 200 PAX in the back.
Had he stayed in a sinking aircraft getting everyone out at that point he is a Hero
just a word used to readily by the media and me being pedantic over its common use
Pace
One of my jets operates out of Leeds
always windy Some airports ban single engine aircraft for those very reasons
Totally off topic but a comment to BPF the word Hero is grossly misused.
A Hero is someone who puts their wellbeing physically or mentally at threat on behalf of others.
I could be a fantastic race car driver when all four tyres blow at high speed on the motorway. Because of my superior skills as a driver I control the car and bring it to a stop on the hard shoulder.
I am an unwilling part of the event saving my own and others through those skills.
i am not a HERO.
i jump out of the car and run up the embankment only to turn around and see the car enveloped in flames. I run back and rip the doors open dragging my passengers out of the car and risking myself in the process. i am now a HERO
To me the Captain of the Hudson river ditching was not a Hero although he was described as such.
He was a very professional and capable pilot who pulled off a superb water ditching but he was
an unwilling part of the event i.e. he had that ditching whether he was alone in the aircraft or with 200 PAX in the back.
Had he stayed in a sinking aircraft getting everyone out at that point he is a Hero
just a word used to readily by the media and me being pedantic over its common use
Pace
I think you have misunderstood my point. I think a lot of pilots secretly would be very pleased to be one of "those" pilots. The guy who was climbing out after takeoff and BAM the engine explodes, the windshield is covered in oil but our "hero" pilot coolly bends the aircraft around and executes a flawless landing into the postage stamp field, stepping out of the undamaged aircraft to the applause of the amazed onlookers.......
The reality is, unfortunately a lot more messy with many tragic outcomes that demonstrate just how difficult this scenario really is.
IMO flight training feeds this fantasy with all the emphasis on executing the forced approach and hardly any on avoiding having the engine fail in the first place by avoiding the pilot caused reasons that cause 80 % of the engine failures in certified SEP airplanes.
I believe this is largely why there is such a visceral dislike of the Cirrus parachute and the oft stated covert and overt commentary that paints someone that uses the parachute as being a lesser pilot.
Nothing about this line of argument means that attaining and maintaining skills appropriate to the aircraft is not as important as ever. What is different is that a new technology, the CAPs, has created opportunities to deal with the engine failure scenario and other airborne emergencies in a new way. With an understanding of its capabilities and limitations comes a way to make flying safer.
I think that is a good thing
Finally saying Sully is not a genuine hero says a lot more about you than Sully.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sully WAS a hero all right.
Not for using all his experience, training, and capability of the aircraft to bring about a happy arrival.
No, in my book he became a hero when he went back into the aircraft WHEN IT WAS IN A SINKING CONDITION to make absolutely sure that all his passengers had been saved.
Unlike some ship captains lately in the news.
Not for using all his experience, training, and capability of the aircraft to bring about a happy arrival.
No, in my book he became a hero when he went back into the aircraft WHEN IT WAS IN A SINKING CONDITION to make absolutely sure that all his passengers had been saved.
Unlike some ship captains lately in the news.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF you and I seem to cross swords all the time now with jibes at me over any thing and everything but what the heck if it makes you feel good
A Hero pilot is not one who pulls off a great landing because he has an engine failure! That is a guy who is in a situation whether he likes it or not and uses his skills and a certain amount of luck get him out of it!
A hero is someone who risks their own physical and mental well being for others purposely putting themselves at risk in that process!
As Mary said if Sully stayed on board insuring everyone was out if the aircraft then that act was an act of heroism!
Ditching the aircraft successfully was an act of professionalism and skill not in itself an act of heroism!
BPF if you cannot see that I do not know what to say just carry on with your willy waving gripes at me if it makes you feel good as that says more to me about you
Pace
A Hero pilot is not one who pulls off a great landing because he has an engine failure! That is a guy who is in a situation whether he likes it or not and uses his skills and a certain amount of luck get him out of it!
A hero is someone who risks their own physical and mental well being for others purposely putting themselves at risk in that process!
As Mary said if Sully stayed on board insuring everyone was out if the aircraft then that act was an act of heroism!
Ditching the aircraft successfully was an act of professionalism and skill not in itself an act of heroism!
BPF if you cannot see that I do not know what to say just carry on with your willy waving gripes at me if it makes you feel good as that says more to me about you
Pace
I think that if we take the emotional/obsessive aspects out of this discussion and just examine all the views, we find that none of them are mutually exclusive.
I used to fly aircraft with ejection seats. Over the years they have saved many lives, but killed quite a few too.
I see BRS in the same light. It's a fantastic safety system, and I'd love to have one in every aircraft I fly.
There will be some whose lives are saved by it's operation, from otherwise impossible situations.
But:
There will always be some who will use the system prematurely/ unnecessarliiy, when there was a better solution.
There will always be some who will operate the aircraft in a way they wouldn't risk without BRS.
There will always be some who don't know how, or fail to operate the system in time, and die in the wreckage.
There will always be some who are injured or killed by accidental/inadvertent operation.
There will always be some bystanders who are injured or killed as a result of the system being operated.
The way to maximise the first and minimise the rest is by EDUCATION.
Knowlege of the system, it's operation, and limitations. Also, prior consideration of possible scenarios, and consequences of it's operation, are what will minimise the risk/benifit ratio of systems such as this.
MJ
Ps. I also think that aircraft should be certified to operate, without limitations or modifications, both with, and without the system being operational.
MJ
I used to fly aircraft with ejection seats. Over the years they have saved many lives, but killed quite a few too.
I see BRS in the same light. It's a fantastic safety system, and I'd love to have one in every aircraft I fly.
There will be some whose lives are saved by it's operation, from otherwise impossible situations.
But:
There will always be some who will use the system prematurely/ unnecessarliiy, when there was a better solution.
There will always be some who will operate the aircraft in a way they wouldn't risk without BRS.
There will always be some who don't know how, or fail to operate the system in time, and die in the wreckage.
There will always be some who are injured or killed by accidental/inadvertent operation.
There will always be some bystanders who are injured or killed as a result of the system being operated.
The way to maximise the first and minimise the rest is by EDUCATION.
Knowlege of the system, it's operation, and limitations. Also, prior consideration of possible scenarios, and consequences of it's operation, are what will minimise the risk/benifit ratio of systems such as this.
MJ
Ps. I also think that aircraft should be certified to operate, without limitations or modifications, both with, and without the system being operational.
MJ
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF you and I seem to cross swords all the time now with jibes at me over any thing and everything but what the heck if it makes you feel good
Therefore your communication failures were self caused?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way more engine failures in the Cirrus, and every other GA airplane, were directly caused by the pilot than were situations where the engine actually failed with no warning and/or where the pilot was helpless to prevent the loss of power.
Flight training, and this forum, IMO spend way too much time on being the hero pilot after the engine failure instead of concentrating on the mundane, unsexy details that prevent the engine failing in the first place......
Flight training, and this forum, IMO spend way too much time on being the hero pilot after the engine failure instead of concentrating on the mundane, unsexy details that prevent the engine failing in the first place......
However, I am aware of a number of maintenance induced failures and would have thought that is probably a bigger problem.
Here is an index to a number of articles by Mike Busch, some of which are relevant to this. They are all well worth reading:
https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/resources/articles
And here is a link to Mike's free webinars which are also well worth watching.
https://www.savvymx.com/index.php/resources/webinar
I appreciate that going through all of this takes quite a long time, but they really are very informative.
I hope this is useful!
Pace
I went back and read some of my earlier posts and you are right, my phraseology made some of the posts veer into a personal challenge, rather than challenging the content of the discussion. So for that I apologize.
I will however stand by my comment about Sully. I firmly believe that what he did could not be duplicated by most airline pilots flying today. I highly recommend you go back and listen to the CVR tape and watch a animation of the event. How Sully and his Copilot dealt with a desperate situation unfolding in a very short time frame, is amazing.
I think there is easy for a reflective negativity to infect internet correspondence. I think it is entirely appropriate to call him a hero and to imply that he was just doing his job, utilizing his training and there was nothing truly special here, has a whiff of hubris that grated.....
Anyway thanks for pulling me up short. You were right and I will be more careful in the future.
Cheers
BPF
I went back and read some of my earlier posts and you are right, my phraseology made some of the posts veer into a personal challenge, rather than challenging the content of the discussion. So for that I apologize.
I will however stand by my comment about Sully. I firmly believe that what he did could not be duplicated by most airline pilots flying today. I highly recommend you go back and listen to the CVR tape and watch a animation of the event. How Sully and his Copilot dealt with a desperate situation unfolding in a very short time frame, is amazing.
I think there is easy for a reflective negativity to infect internet correspondence. I think it is entirely appropriate to call him a hero and to imply that he was just doing his job, utilizing his training and there was nothing truly special here, has a whiff of hubris that grated.....
Anyway thanks for pulling me up short. You were right and I will be more careful in the future.
Cheers
BPF
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
Thanks for posting this: here are a few, I hope equally constructive, thoughts:
Possibly, but better too early than too late!
Yes, this is undoubtedly a risk. It is best addressed through training and peer influence from organisations like COPA
Yes, this has been and remains a major challenge. We seem to be making progress with this, but there's still a long way to go.
This is very unlikely. It requires something like a 60 lbs pull to deploy the chute: pilots are taught to "do a chin up" on the handle. The only case that comes close to fitting this scenario is the unsurvivable midair collision that caused an involuntary deployment.
Whilst you can't say it will never happen, it never has so far, and those bystanders will always have both audible and (almost always) visual warning of the deployment. Contrast that with an engine out aircraft gliding in silently at three or four times the speed.
Yes, yes, yes!
Again: absolutely right. The emergencies training I did in the full motion simulator was a real eye opener and I'd recommend any Cirrus pilot that can to do that. If you can't do that, talk at length about this to, and fly with, an experienced CSIP!
I agree, but it's unlikely to happen on cost grounds as well as because it's not in Cirrus Design's interest to spend the money to achieve that.
Thanks for posting this
: here are a few, I hope equally constructive, thoughts:
There will be some whose lives are saved by it's operation, from otherwise impossible situations.
But:
There will always be some who will use the system prematurely/ unnecessarliiy, when there was a better solution.
But:
There will always be some who will use the system prematurely/ unnecessarliiy, when there was a better solution.
There will always be some who will operate the aircraft in a way they wouldn't risk without BRS.
There will always be some who don't know how, or fail to operate the system in time, and die in the wreckage.
There will always be some who are injured or killed by accidental/inadvertent operation.
There will always be some bystanders who are injured or killed as a result of the system being operated.
The way to maximise the first and minimise the rest is by EDUCATION.
Knowlege of the system, it's operation, and limitations. Also, prior consideration of possible scenarios, and consequences of it's operation, are what will minimise the risk/benifit ratio of systems such as this.
Ps. I also think that aircraft should be certified to operate, without limitations or modifications, both with, and without the system being operational.
... but it's unlikely to happen on cost grounds as well as because it's not in Cirrus Design's interest to spend the money to achieve that.
MJ