The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a good job all round. The Citabria pilot did a sterling job in awareness and ensuring the first attenders were getting directed to the scene.
I mentioned fuel, because whilst engines can fail anywhere, any time, it seemed a bit strange to fail on final. Just a thought..
We can await the report
I mentioned fuel, because whilst engines can fail anywhere, any time, it seemed a bit strange to fail on final. Just a thought..
We can await the report
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Miami
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to the uneducated
Perhaps looking down on a perfect field at 1000 ft, doesn't reveal an imperfect field at touchdown time. Perhaps the perfect field contains fox holes, or rabbit holes, or gopher holes just waiting for a nose wheel to step in and flip the plane.
But of course, you'll never see those imperfections at 1000 ft.
Or perhaps descending to a furrowed dirt field at 16 knots makes more sense that approaching it at 60 or 70 kts. Which I ask you produces more energy to dissipate?
Geez, every well trained military pilot knows to pull the chute; and does.
When the engine gives up and can't be restarted, it's time to give up the plane and let the insurance company pay for it . . . that is unless your machismo gets in the way and you have something to prove.
It would only be a fool who would pass up on a viable safety option, in favor of proving how skilled he is at making power out landings on a dirt field.
But of course, you'll never see those imperfections at 1000 ft.
Or perhaps descending to a furrowed dirt field at 16 knots makes more sense that approaching it at 60 or 70 kts. Which I ask you produces more energy to dissipate?
Geez, every well trained military pilot knows to pull the chute; and does.
When the engine gives up and can't be restarted, it's time to give up the plane and let the insurance company pay for it . . . that is unless your machismo gets in the way and you have something to prove.
It would only be a fool who would pass up on a viable safety option, in favor of proving how skilled he is at making power out landings on a dirt field.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here we go another evangelistic chute puller..
The argument per say is not about the safety aspects of the chute is more about idiots putting themselves into situations that they should never been in which then leads to them pulling the chute when the situation gets the better of them. Either by bad luck or being talent limited.
The argument per say is not about the safety aspects of the chute is more about idiots putting themselves into situations that they should never been in which then leads to them pulling the chute when the situation gets the better of them. Either by bad luck or being talent limited.
Moderator
I opine that the (new)age old argument of to pull or not to pull, or rather, does an airframe even need a parachute, will never be won - there are persuasive arguments on both sides.
Though, I always remember wise advice about returning to earth: Chances of survival are inversely proportionate to angle of arrival.
With that, I tend toward a preference of arriving to earth with forward flying speed, and near zero vertical speed, rather than vertical speed, which I cannot arrest nor control. But, that's me. If I had been trained in military aircraft, which I suspect are characteristically incapable of a practical forced landing, and taught the benefits and decisions associated with ejecting, I might see it differently.
Though, I always remember wise advice about returning to earth: Chances of survival are inversely proportionate to angle of arrival.
With that, I tend toward a preference of arriving to earth with forward flying speed, and near zero vertical speed, rather than vertical speed, which I cannot arrest nor control. But, that's me. If I had been trained in military aircraft, which I suspect are characteristically incapable of a practical forced landing, and taught the benefits and decisions associated with ejecting, I might see it differently.
Moderator
Ah, well outside my realm of experience. Though, I have heard that the Canadian single propeller trainers, the CT-156 Harvard II, which I would think could be forced landed, is "ejected from" if things go bad. As I say, not my area of expertise.
I'm limited to aircraft which can (and are expected to be) force landed. I've succeeded four times at that (which is an average of once per 1750 piloting hours, so I'm not too worried!). I was required to wear a 'chute when I flew jumpers, but I never imagined using it!
I'm limited to aircraft which can (and are expected to be) force landed. I've succeeded four times at that (which is an average of once per 1750 piloting hours, so I'm not too worried!). I was required to wear a 'chute when I flew jumpers, but I never imagined using it!
Oh well, an interesting first post. On a long dead thread. I landed in a field last week, fwiw. But of course I cheated, I used a glider. And one could say that if I had been a better pilot I would have completed my task rather than returning home with the glider in its box. However, the field I chose at a thousand feet was just fine at zero feet. I once again used my parachute as an imperfect cushion. Also it is useful when parking the glider in the field to put on the wing.
And I can use the glider again next weekend.
And I can use the glider again next weekend.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly balloons, now I teach in steerable aircraft with engines.
One of the constant surprises is the inability of many students to make any sort of assessment of a field surface based on its colour and texture - they have no idea whether the green field is rough grass, smooth grass, wheat or oilseed rape. It's not a skill you can easily teach in the course of a PPL. I have the benefit of a couple of decades of studying fields from the air to fall back on.
One of the constant surprises is the inability of many students to make any sort of assessment of a field surface based on its colour and texture - they have no idea whether the green field is rough grass, smooth grass, wheat or oilseed rape. It's not a skill you can easily teach in the course of a PPL. I have the benefit of a couple of decades of studying fields from the air to fall back on.
Moderator
I have never flown a parachute equipped aircraft, but I've flown lots of faster types (Cardinals, 206's, Piper Arrows, Bellanca Vikings and some Mooney) in which I'd be thinking pretty carefully about the choice of field. But that would be for the risk of damage during a forced landing, rather than my perception of the certainty of it after an airframe 'chute was deployed. I will always try to make the best of what I have to work with, and get it to the ground so it is reusable. in 7000+ hours, and a number of in flight emergencies, I have never for a moment thought to abandon an aircraft in flight, I don't know why I would start thinking that way now, even if new technology enabled it.
Old dog, I guess.....
Old dog, I guess.....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big risk among older pilots is that their behaviour is programmed and can no longer be modified. In effect, it means new technology will bite or save younger pilots but a status quo remains for the older generation.
Moderator
it means new technology will bite or save younger pilots but a status quo remains for the older generation.
