The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[VMC-on-top]

yaaawn !!

Touche!

Where do we start with yet another "anti-Cirrus-and-their-dumb-pilots".

The chute is a safety device. There was a thread running not so long ago with a link to a COPA presentation discussing the merits of the use of the chute. Everyone who has used it within the limits has climbed out and walked away. Not all of those who thought they could recover / make a forced landing etc were quite so lucky. Sure, the field looks relatively flat but how many on here could safely say (whilst still above 1000ft) that it was definately flat, firm enough to land on with no pot holes? Probably very few, if any, I suspect.

He did the right thing, pulled the chute and walked away. End of. The aircraft will probably be repaired and flying again in the near future.

C'mon guys, change the record, these "anti-Cirrus" threads really are getting a little long in the tooth now!

[172driver]

These debates about the chute are just idiotic.

The guys walked away and the a/c is a problem for the insurance. Well done, I say.

[englishal]

military jet with an engine failure is a completly different scenario which is not worth discussing here

I was thinking more along the lines of a military turboprop, such as a Tucano, which will carry about the same amount of energy into a field. Is it military practice to dead stick land these into fields if the engine quit or are their SOPs to bail out? Also the grobs they use - I seem to remember reading that in the event of an EF at altitude, that the aircraft would be abandoned.

Anyway, I wasn't there so can't comment on the rights or wrongs of what the pilot did. I may have pulled the chute, or I may have opted for an off airport landing. I know in my plane I'd opt for the second, only because we don't have the option of a chute.

[airpolice]

172 Driver wrote:

The guys walked away and the a/c is a problem for the insurance. Well done, I say.

Actually it becomes an insurance cost problem for all of us.

[airpolice]

The Tucano has bang seats and they need to be used as the chances are slim of finding a suitable field for the speed it needs to touch down at.

The Grob should be abandoned in the event of a loss of control, but there was forced landing in a field recently, near Cranwell as I recall. Not the first Grob to be put into a field and be repairable either.

[VMC-on-top]

Actually it becomes an insurance cost problem for all of us.

...and it would have been an even bigger problem if the guy had attempted a forced landing, flipped it over, the aircraft was written off and his passenger was killed. Instead, he pulled the chute, they both walked away and the aircraft was relatively in tact and almost certainly repairable at a fraction of the cost.

[airpolice]

And much less of a problem if he had just landed it in the field.

I wonder what he would do on a skills test if the Examiner closed the throttle, would he simply reach for the handle and expect to get the box ticked?

[VMC-on-top]

The Cirrus statistics are quite clear. Those who pull the chute within limits walk away. Those who attempt a forced landing, aren't usually so lucky. What this boils down to is was he confident in walking away by pulling the chute? Yes, he was, so he pulled it. We will never know if he would have been so lucky if he had attempted landing in a field. We will never know but the stats are clear. EF = chute. We can all be wise by glancing a few photos and saying that its like a bowling green, so he made a mistake. What we don't know is what the surface looked like from 2000ft. Could you - or anyone else for that matter - say with 100% certainty, that they could tell that a field landing is a better option from that altitude? I doubt it very much.

Here is the link to the COPA presentation. Long but worth listening to.

CAPS... CONSIDER - M9 Presentation on Vimeo

[Dg800]

Those who pull the chute within limits walk away.

Except where the system malfunctioned, in which case the passengers were carried away in a box. It is extremely naive to think that a system will NEVER EVER malfunction, even if used within limits.

[VMC-on-top]

So, if we are talking probability, then the probability of walking away from a chute pull within limits, with a repairable aircraft it is PROB 99. Walking away from an off airport landing with the same outcome? I'd say PROB 50? I know which option I'd take.

[Wirbelsturm]

I was thinking more along the lines of a military turboprop, such as a Tucano, which will carry about the same amount of energy into a field

Never been in a Tucano then? Weight and energy, even without the Turboprop running is vastly more than a Cirrus, sorry.

It is policy in the military to only use the seat when all other avenues of recovery have failed. The effects of the 'bang seat' are not pleasant even with the new seats, the rocket seats screwed your spine and thus were most definately a last resort!


The Grob had, in the past, along with the Firefly, problems with spinning in which case it was recommended (to students) to use the parachute in the event of inverted or high rotational spin. In recent times Grobs with thrown prop blades and engine failures have been successfully 'dead sticked'.

The entire debate is a non issue as the decision to either dead stick or abandon/go for the chute is down to purely personal faith in ones ability. No blame should be proportioned to the chaps decision as I'm sure there would be lots of posts of 'idiot' if he had the system, didn't use it and screwed the forced landing up resulting in death or injury.

Can't win.

[Dg800]

So, if we are talking probability, then the probability of walking away from a chute pull within limits, with a repairable aircraft it is PROB 99. Walking away from an off airport landing with the same outcome? I'd say PROB 50? I know which option I'd take.

If you want to base such a decision on completely made up numbers, then be my guest. Just remember that you have no second chance should the BRS malfunction and only partially deploy, unless you also carry a bailout rig.

[Sam Rutherford]

My understanding is that Cirrus actively encourage chute deployment, and actively discourage attempting a forced landing.

They have presumably done the maths...

Fly safe, with or without a little red handle, Sam.

[airpolice]

Doing the Maths:

Profit for us if a/c crashed into a field via BRS and replaced with a new a/c by the insurance company= A

Profit for us if a/c makes a forced landing in field and requires recovery & cosmetic repairs by nearest licensed engineer =B

Ah..............

[Sam Rutherford]

Hm, not convinced. I do think their priority is to demonstrate that you're less likely to die in a Cirrus than a... And that the chute will probably make a better stab at achieving that than the pilot.

I don't think it takes much damage to 'insurance write-off' a Cirrus - it's not lots of separate pieces held together with lots of rivets. I suspect nearly all Cirrus accidents (where there is some speed involved and an inanimate object) cause the machine to melted down and made into bottle tops.

[VMC-on-top]

You obviously haven't watched the video. At approx 28.30 ...

"The impact velocity under chute is 17 knots.
The impact velocity at 60 knots is 12 times more energy.
At 100 knots, it is 34 times more energy.
At 180 knots, it is 112 times more energy."

Dg800 yes, the prob50 / prob99 suggestion was made up but it was based upon the above.

With knowledge of the above, what would you suggest would be more realistic?

[Dg800]

My understanding is that Cirrus actively encourage chute deployment, and actively discourage attempting a forced landing.

In the POH, or just as a general statement? I doubt the former as it might expose them to major liability if the BRS where to malfunction while other options, such as a dead stick landing in a nearby suitable field, were available.
All I know for sure is that they mandate use of the BRS in case of an inadvertent spin (and of course forbid spinning it on purpose!) as it was a certification requirement.

[Dg800]

You obviously haven't watched the video. At approx 28.30 ...

"The impact velocity under chute is 17 knots.
The impact velocity at 60 knots is 12 times more energy.
At 100 knots, it is 34 times more energy.
At 180 knots, it is 112 times more energy."

This is utterly meaningless as it assumes an "impact" will be the inevitable outcome and this is in fact only true when the chute is deployed . If you really have a suitable field and do everything reasonably right, the chance you will impact anything are near to zero and hence the impact energy will be zero too (or well within the limits of what the undercarriage is designed to sustain).
The last statement is particularly meaningless. Unless the Cirrus has an approach speed near 180 knots, which I seriously doubt, the only situation in which you might impact at such a speed is in case of total loss of control (such as when spinning or after the horizontal stabilizer has set a different course than the rest of the airframe) in which case there really is no other option than the BRS.

[VMC-on-top]

What is meaningless is that you choose to ignore the energy with which you meet the ground. 17 knots V 60 knots. When you meet the ground in your forced landing at 60 knots, you still have to stop. It is not the aircraft meeting the ground which kills people, it is what happens with all that additional energy that you still have and what happens with it as you meet the ploughed field at almost 70 mph.

[Dg800]

I'm really not following you. Touching down at 60 knots is not an "impact". To stop, you simply use the brakes (maybe a bit more forcefully than usual, because you never know) as with any other (controlled) landing. Even if the gear were to give way, you will not stop abruptly and the kinetic energy will be dissipated gradually. The only case in which the aircraft will always come to an abrupt stop is when the chute is actually deployed! For the comparison to be meaningful you'd have to hit a concrete wall right after touch down, which would mean either that there really is no suitable field available (in which case pull the chute) or that you're not capable of putting the aircraft down where you want it without power, in which case you shouldn't be flying it to begin with.