The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(but happy to leave the fun and games to you now, it is a bit boring, and I don't really know why I posted, should have known it was a mistake he he).
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to consider the idea that the forced landing would (probably) not be an issue if another part of the Cirrus hadn't failed. I'd prefer to use MY limited sills to get me down rather than rely on those of a company who have produced a product that has already failed and got me in the pickle that makes the choice seem so urgent.
Ejecting, or using a BRS, is not a guaranteed "walk away with no issues" type of solution.
I think the pilot in this particular incident did the right thing, for him, and I also think that if in the best part of 2,000 hours he's not mastered the forced landing, perhaps he should stick to BRS equipped aircraft. Or cars.
Ejecting, or using a BRS, is not a guaranteed "walk away with no issues" type of solution.
I think the pilot in this particular incident did the right thing, for him, and I also think that if in the best part of 2,000 hours he's not mastered the forced landing, perhaps he should stick to BRS equipped aircraft. Or cars.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might come as a shock to you, but we are not here solely to entertain YOU.
It is all good fun. I have no doubt we will all enjoy seeing how this thread develops.
BTW take some time to read some of the other threads on this subject (if you havent already) - there is some surprisingly informative information and a very skilled debate with Pace of this parish who (I think it is fair) ended up changing his views with regards the chute. Worth the read between the wind ups.
I think the polarised opinions are mostly down to a pilot's confidence in their abilities. For some, (myself included) there's enough confidence in our abilities to think "yes, I can stick what is essentially a small aircraft into a large field". I would not belittle those who think (or even know) they can't do it, but personally I'd have kept flying it.
Last edited by Thud105; 3rd Dec 2012 at 15:47.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
2) A conventional forced landing that ends with pilot loss of control, unseen power cables, large boulders, ditches, wire fences or other debri that cant be seen from x feet may work out less well,
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.
I've seen the aftermath of two hot air balloon landing accidents where HT cables were hit at very low speed and the whole shooting match earthed, caught fire and killed people. On the end of a 'chute you would be in a similar situation and could only watch as the wind blows you into something nasty. If you were still flying the aircraft at least you might have a chance of avoiding them. So, on balance in the event of an engine failure I'd prefer the conventional PFL option rather than an instant chute pull, which appears to have been the case here.
One wonders how often the average PPL holder practices forced landings, or considers "what if...". This pilot seemed to prefer to immediately leave his fate to the 'chute where there seems to have been a very nice field to glide into.
The reported altitude being flown does leave me just a little sceptical because of the supposed "less than a minute" from the engine failure to being on the ground. So they came down at an average rate of more than 5,000 feet/minute! Even if the wings had dropped off it should have taken longer than that under the 'chute; and this was an aircraft initially flying level at cruise speed, then gliding, wasn't it?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any landing you make which you can walk away from is a good one. If you can use the aircraft again afterwards, it is great one"
Seriously, there are plenty of airstrips in Oz which are far smaller and less smooth than that area. With around 2,000 hrs that guy should have been more confident in his own abilities.
What exactly did they "teach" him in that BRS course he says he did a few months earlier? "Always pull the chute"?
They survived, which is goal no.1, so well done to that, but surely a better assessment could have been reached with that landing area underneath, especially with the time available from 5,000 ft?
Seriously, there are plenty of airstrips in Oz which are far smaller and less smooth than that area. With around 2,000 hrs that guy should have been more confident in his own abilities.
What exactly did they "teach" him in that BRS course he says he did a few months earlier? "Always pull the chute"?
They survived, which is goal no.1, so well done to that, but surely a better assessment could have been reached with that landing area underneath, especially with the time available from 5,000 ft?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No parachute system is really 100% reliable, unfortunately... There have actually been fatalities because of that, you know.
so whether one or the other is better in a given situation will always be a matter of opinion. What I have an issue with are generalized statements such as "Always pull the chute,
However I have made my own mind up that in an off airport landing / crash with an unknown surface I personally have planned as standard to pull the chute, unless winds on the ground are estimated above 30 knots in which case I will make the decision based on what landing sites are available.
This is a decision process evolved over the last 4 years and I started out trained like all pilots, in the event of engine failure or another emergency to land in a field, through training and awareness and wishing the best chance of survival I have changed my mind.
I give 100% backing to this guy, with 2000 hours he has thought through his options and made his choice and is alive and well and unscathed as are his passengers.
He probably did have a reasonable chance of putting it down in that field but I bet plenty here would stuff it up or get a surprise they did not expect with the surface.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With around 2,000 hrs that guy should have been more confident in his own abilities.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With even a quarter of those hours any instructor should be able to plant it within a couple of feet of where they intended exactly on speed.
This is as well I presume his normal training area which he must have know like the back of his hand.
If you can't pull of a forced landing from pretty much anywhere in the local training area after 1000 hours never mind 2000 hours you shouldn't be teaching.
Anyway that will have put payed to his commercial career outside instructing so one less looking for the next step up.
This is as well I presume his normal training area which he must have know like the back of his hand.
If you can't pull of a forced landing from pretty much anywhere in the local training area after 1000 hours never mind 2000 hours you shouldn't be teaching.
Anyway that will have put payed to his commercial career outside instructing so one less looking for the next step up.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With even a quarter of those hours any instructor should be able to plant it within a couple of feet of where they intended exactly on speed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this particular incident while the pilot professes to have had a thorough Caps instruction he went totally against the manufacturers recommendations in the flight manual.
This was a conventional forced landing aiming for a suitable landing and only if no suitable forced landing site exists to CONSIDER the use of the Caps.
Obviously this pilot had plenty of suitable landing sites but still pulled the Caps.
So we have a contradiction between certain training bodies and the manufacturer.
The worst thing in any forced landing or Caps pull is indecision so there has to be agreed guidlines on when or when not to pull the Caps.
I very much view the Chute as I would the other engine on a twin ie it gives you further options.
Where Fuji and 007 Heli have changed my mind are that I would consider using the caps in situations where the aircraft is still flyable.
I hoped I coverted 007Heli into being very cautious in strong winds?
I do consider the Caps lures pilots into flying in conditions where they are not capable.
And here is my second conversion to Caps! An acceptance that a number of pilots are deficient in basic handling skills hence pulling the caps is the lesser of two evils!
But yes the Caps is a substantial move forward in safety lets get some approved guidlines in its use.
Pace
This was a conventional forced landing aiming for a suitable landing and only if no suitable forced landing site exists to CONSIDER the use of the Caps.
Obviously this pilot had plenty of suitable landing sites but still pulled the Caps.
So we have a contradiction between certain training bodies and the manufacturer.
The worst thing in any forced landing or Caps pull is indecision so there has to be agreed guidlines on when or when not to pull the Caps.
I very much view the Chute as I would the other engine on a twin ie it gives you further options.
Where Fuji and 007 Heli have changed my mind are that I would consider using the caps in situations where the aircraft is still flyable.
I hoped I coverted 007Heli into being very cautious in strong winds?
I do consider the Caps lures pilots into flying in conditions where they are not capable.
And here is my second conversion to Caps! An acceptance that a number of pilots are deficient in basic handling skills hence pulling the caps is the lesser of two evils!
But yes the Caps is a substantial move forward in safety lets get some approved guidlines in its use.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To introduce some facts into this age old debate you have a 1 in 5 chance of killing yourself in a conventional forced landing. You can argue the toss on the stats., but that is the overall conclusions and experience in the States.
Inevitably that includes landings in unsuitable terrain, it includes landings in suitable terrain where the pilot lost control and doubtless it includes pilots that passed out, but there was no evidence they had when their body was recovered.
Never the less you have a 20% chance of killing yourself and of those that do that includes deaths in circumstances where the forced landing looked ideal. Fate can deal some very unkind blows and perfect fields can hide less than perfect obstacles that are invisible from 1,000 feet.
At the moment the statistical evidence is that the results after chute deployment approach a 100% surety of successful outcome.
So ignoring for one moment the actual circumstances which would you chose - a one in 5 chance of killing yourself or almost no chance?
Next a sensible pilot will factor in whether the particular circumstances of a forced landing distort the odds in favour of a better outcome without the chute. Lest we forget that decision needs to be taken pretty quickly, in reasonably or very stressful circumstances and not with the benefit of hind sight.
Does the field present any undue hazards,
Am I sure I can make the field and will not end up short, or long,
Do I regularly practice forced landings ( dare I say a Cirrus pilot may well not),
What impact might the wind have,
and most importantly,
taking everything into account am I sure I can beat the stats!
Beating stats is a dangerous game. Many think they can beat the stats of winning the lottery, but not many people would play Russian roulette with six bullets.
Lest we forget that is the choice that confronts every Cirrus pilot when the earth beckons.
Almost certainly the insurance companies want you to pull (and will question why you didnt if the outcome is less than good) (in the States they have taken to waving the excess where the chute is deployed), COPA pretty much wants you to pull, statistically you will need to justify why you didnt.
For all these reasons the decision is not as so often portrayed.
I find that most (and I agree not all) Cirrus pilots have had specialist training, well understand the decision they must make and few are the "amateurs" so often portrayed.
Until you have had an engine failure for real I don't think most pilots really appreciate the panic this can induce.
I don't think the comparison with glider pilots is reasonable. If you glide you are "doing" this sort of thing a lot of the time, air brakes and currency make a huge difference, never mind the lower landing speeds.
All I ask before we are so ready to criticise any pilot that pulls the chute is to at least ask of yourself the question what decision would you have taken - would you be so certain in the few minutes required to reach a decision that the outcome would be more successful with a forced landing. With hindsight you might have reached a different decision (I would love to see a picture of the field taken from the ground before I landed in it) but you don't have hindsight - the decisions needs to be taken now - later you may need to justify it.
In the case we are discussing the pilot doeskin need to justify the outcome. They both survived with very minor injuries, in the States the insurance company would have waived the excess, the aircraft could definitely fly again, the press haven't had a field day about another rich boy landing on a puppy farm and nearly wiping out the whole farm in a fireball, so everyone is happy except for a few that think they could have done a better job - but we will never know.
In short dont look at the photo in the papers, think about whole process and be certain if you can you WOULD have done a better job. If you are CERTAIN good for you, but lets hope you are never put to the test.
For me it is like some many real life situations, it is easy to talk the talk, it is easy to look at the photo, it is easy to say I could have done better - are you certain, absolutely certain you could have done better?
If you are certain I have total respect, if you think you would have done better but haven't asked yourself all of these questions (and others) then I dont respect your criticism.
Inevitably that includes landings in unsuitable terrain, it includes landings in suitable terrain where the pilot lost control and doubtless it includes pilots that passed out, but there was no evidence they had when their body was recovered.
Never the less you have a 20% chance of killing yourself and of those that do that includes deaths in circumstances where the forced landing looked ideal. Fate can deal some very unkind blows and perfect fields can hide less than perfect obstacles that are invisible from 1,000 feet.
At the moment the statistical evidence is that the results after chute deployment approach a 100% surety of successful outcome.
So ignoring for one moment the actual circumstances which would you chose - a one in 5 chance of killing yourself or almost no chance?
Next a sensible pilot will factor in whether the particular circumstances of a forced landing distort the odds in favour of a better outcome without the chute. Lest we forget that decision needs to be taken pretty quickly, in reasonably or very stressful circumstances and not with the benefit of hind sight.
Does the field present any undue hazards,
Am I sure I can make the field and will not end up short, or long,
Do I regularly practice forced landings ( dare I say a Cirrus pilot may well not),
What impact might the wind have,
and most importantly,
taking everything into account am I sure I can beat the stats!
Beating stats is a dangerous game. Many think they can beat the stats of winning the lottery, but not many people would play Russian roulette with six bullets.
Lest we forget that is the choice that confronts every Cirrus pilot when the earth beckons.
Almost certainly the insurance companies want you to pull (and will question why you didnt if the outcome is less than good) (in the States they have taken to waving the excess where the chute is deployed), COPA pretty much wants you to pull, statistically you will need to justify why you didnt.
For all these reasons the decision is not as so often portrayed.
I find that most (and I agree not all) Cirrus pilots have had specialist training, well understand the decision they must make and few are the "amateurs" so often portrayed.
Until you have had an engine failure for real I don't think most pilots really appreciate the panic this can induce.
I don't think the comparison with glider pilots is reasonable. If you glide you are "doing" this sort of thing a lot of the time, air brakes and currency make a huge difference, never mind the lower landing speeds.
All I ask before we are so ready to criticise any pilot that pulls the chute is to at least ask of yourself the question what decision would you have taken - would you be so certain in the few minutes required to reach a decision that the outcome would be more successful with a forced landing. With hindsight you might have reached a different decision (I would love to see a picture of the field taken from the ground before I landed in it) but you don't have hindsight - the decisions needs to be taken now - later you may need to justify it.
In the case we are discussing the pilot doeskin need to justify the outcome. They both survived with very minor injuries, in the States the insurance company would have waived the excess, the aircraft could definitely fly again, the press haven't had a field day about another rich boy landing on a puppy farm and nearly wiping out the whole farm in a fireball, so everyone is happy except for a few that think they could have done a better job - but we will never know.
In short dont look at the photo in the papers, think about whole process and be certain if you can you WOULD have done a better job. If you are CERTAIN good for you, but lets hope you are never put to the test.
For me it is like some many real life situations, it is easy to talk the talk, it is easy to look at the photo, it is easy to say I could have done better - are you certain, absolutely certain you could have done better?
If you are certain I have total respect, if you think you would have done better but haven't asked yourself all of these questions (and others) then I dont respect your criticism.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 3rd Dec 2012 at 21:19.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
But then the flight manual should be less coy about the use of the chute! I am not sure about the manufacturer being scared of recommending the chute!
They can happily detail a forced landing with the addendum of if all looks bad CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Surely if your figures of 20% Likelyhood of death are true with 100% success with the chute the manufacturers are being negligent in detailing and recommending a forced landing?
Please supply a link to the 20% Fatlity rate in forced landings?
I know in the jet I fly we go to the manufacters Emergency checklist or flight manual for every emergency or performance detail.
I find it hard to understand why Cirrus are different and advice comes from outside bodies.
You maybe right
Pace
But then the flight manual should be less coy about the use of the chute! I am not sure about the manufacturer being scared of recommending the chute!
They can happily detail a forced landing with the addendum of if all looks bad CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Surely if your figures of 20% Likelyhood of death are true with 100% success with the chute the manufacturers are being negligent in detailing and recommending a forced landing?
Please supply a link to the 20% Fatlity rate in forced landings?
I know in the jet I fly we go to the manufacters Emergency checklist or flight manual for every emergency or performance detail.
I find it hard to understand why Cirrus are different and advice comes from outside bodies.
You maybe right
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You do have this obsession with flight manuals.
You know as well as i that an emergency checklists relies on an OODA loop. Overcome the first three elements which can be difficult enough and if you have them right then the fourth element will at least in theory be the only logical step.
Cirrus could do that with the chute but cirrus would have to demonstrate they can substantiate the outcome. How could they do that when the poh was certified? There was no testing of chute to ground deployment and if there had been the cost would have prevented the aircraft ever flying. We have all been guinea pigs - only now have real life chute deployments started to give us statistcal evidence of whether or not it is better to deploy the chute and when. More evidence is needed although we hope isnt forthcoming.
Time will tell whether cirrus could stand in an america court and argue that if the first three elements of the OODA loop are correctly answered by the pilot then the fourth is the correct action. Until then as i have said before i dont see how you can expect cirrus to go further unless you want them to go bankcrupt at the lawyers hands the first time a chute is deployed and the outcome is less than successful.
You do have this obsession with flight manuals
.You know as well as i that an emergency checklists relies on an OODA loop. Overcome the first three elements which can be difficult enough and if you have them right then the fourth element will at least in theory be the only logical step.
Cirrus could do that with the chute but cirrus would have to demonstrate they can substantiate the outcome. How could they do that when the poh was certified? There was no testing of chute to ground deployment and if there had been the cost would have prevented the aircraft ever flying. We have all been guinea pigs - only now have real life chute deployments started to give us statistcal evidence of whether or not it is better to deploy the chute and when. More evidence is needed although we hope isnt forthcoming.
Time will tell whether cirrus could stand in an america court and argue that if the first three elements of the OODA loop are correctly answered by the pilot then the fourth is the correct action. Until then as i have said before i dont see how you can expect cirrus to go further unless you want them to go bankcrupt at the lawyers hands the first time a chute is deployed and the outcome is less than successful.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep... could not resist, I had to post it 
It was a serious question though. That story really strikes me as a waste of a G3, but you are right though: I might have ended up doing the same thing myself, in a similar situation (apart from the proud self-portrait in front of the wreck).
It was a serious question though. That story really strikes me as a waste of a G3, but you are right though: I might have ended up doing the same thing myself, in a similar situation (apart from the proud self-portrait in front of the wreck).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be it a chute pull or a forced landing the chances of fixing the aircraft are about the same.
I think not!!! get a forced landing right and there have been many where the pilots await alongside a perfectly undamaged aircraft for assistance with the only cost moving the aircraft out of the field. On some occasions the aircraft has been flown out!
Pull the chute and the aircraft is severely damaged every time no question about that!
Fuji
Just to answer the post you made that I have been converted to the chute.
I always considered it to be a major advancement in aircraft safety.
Where I have moved is from regarding the chute on the Cirrus as one an aerobatic pilot or glider pilot would carry ie to abandon an unflyable aircraft! to appreciating it can be used in other ways.
I would not use the chute over flat land where there were open fields even if it meant hitting a hedge or fence.
I would not use the chute in strong winds! Once the chute is pulled you have lost control! Not only do you have a high vertical speed but you will mix that with a horizontal speed. We all know the damage a 30mph crash will cause to a car. Remember the car is far better designed for crash protection than an aircraft.
Far better to use those winds to your favor in a forced landing and subsequent low groundspeeds at touchdown.
I would not use the chute over built up areas where I could glide clear. We have no control over where the aircraft descends and have a responsibility to those on the ground.
I would not use the chute below 1000 ft agl hence its important to commit to a forced landing or chute pull.
Panicking at 300 feet and pulling the chute will result in a free fall and instant death.
I would use the chute with engine failure over dense forest or mountainous terrain.
I would use the chute if unwell where I felt I may pass out!
I would use the chute at night with an engine failure or over fog banks and a cloudbase known to be very low.
I would use it for bad icing!
Here is an important point which many fail to acknowledge.
The Chuted cirrus will without doubt encourage pilots into conditions that they or the aircraft should not be in!
I know without a shadow of a doubt that I would be very nervous flying a single piston at night out of gliding distance of an airport!
The Cirrus would change that for me and I would be a lot more comfortable with that get out of jail card in the unlikely but possible case of an engine failure.
I am sure as in one accident report pilots who are not current or capable in cloud would fly there on the same principal as being more comfortable at night with the chute.
Over water I am not sure. The undercarriage is a major absorber of the vertical impact into water you loose that.
This is the first standard production aircraft to come with a chute installed which changes what is possible with a conventional aircraft.
There is little direction from the manufacturers which leaves when to pull the chute in the hands of often inexperienced pilots. That is a dangerous way to proceed and there should be far more expert and approved guidance!
But that explains why the subject generates so much debate.
My last point is it worries me when technology is used to make up for a lack of basic skills rather than complimenting those basic skills.
There have been some accidents and chute pulls where you do question if the guy at the controls is a competent well trained pilot or some incompetent half baked idiot flying the aircraft.
Last edited by Pace; 4th Dec 2012 at 18:48.