The most unnecessary chute pull ever?

[A and C]

Fuji

I would be interested to hear more about the DA42 landing gear repairs that went wrong, it was unlikely to have been due to mistakes at the factory who would have issued the drawings for such work, I would guess that it was a quality control issue by the people doing the work.

Unfortunatly a lot of the composite issues are not understood by the GA industry who are by and large metal centric, this metal influence could clearly be seen in the Boeing composite repair manual that Cirrus in the early days based their repair practices on. Cirrus have now moved on and are using techniques and practices that offer both a stronger and lighter repair than the Boeing system offered ( with the 787 Boeing must also have moved on !!)

You are correct about the quality control issues both in the lay up, cure and post cure stages. Also when the lay up is of a particularly critical component a test sample is made ( just as at original manufacture) and this is sent for the same destruction testing by the aircraft manufacturers that new components test samples receive.

[007helicopter]

I have to disagree about the sale price of aircraft that have been repaired by reputable companies, the sale price usually firms up after about a year when the market has forgotten that the aircraft had an accident and has seen it flying for a while.

I tend to agree closer to you A&C, what I have personally witnessed is properly repaired Cirrus aircraft do take a knock of around 10% if you generally compare to the market, certainly not peanuts or 30% cheaper. As time goes on the relevance is still a factor but softens.

Also out of the 39 Cirrus Caps pulls 9 are flying again, so lets call it 25%, they will have been repaired to a very high standard.

You could argue a Cirrus has never yet had to 2 pulls, so the repaired aircraft to date have a 100% safety record

Also the business about avionics suffering from the impact of a Caps pull, I am yet to here any evidence of this being reality.

[Pace]

Figures are meaningless it's simply supply and demand! Something is worth what someone will pay.
007 you for arguments sake are buying a Cirrus.You have 10 you are looking at ? The Top dollar ones are well specked, kept in Hangers. One owner,No damage History and low hours.
Your engineer checks one of them ! That aircraft had a chute pull, landed at high force and was extensively damaged! It has been well rebuilt.
Would you buy it any where near the price of the others?
I would not unless it was substantially cheaper to such an extent that I felt sure if I sold her next year my money was secure!
You are buying someone's problem which then becomes your problem!
What is someone's problem worth to you ?


Pace

[A and C]

pace

This is just your view that it is a problem, yes there is a price difference but not as big as you seem to think.

As I have previously said if you buy an aircraft that has just been fixed by a reputable company you can be sure that It has been inspected to a level that you could never achieve when getting a pre-buy inspection on an aircraft advertised as having no damage history. One of the biggest problems with composites is that bad repairs can be covered up and will only be found with deep expert inspection.

In a lot of ways buying a well repaired aircraft is less of a risk than buying one that has been advertised as having no damage history and it will be cheaper and you will know exactly what you are getting.

It all boils down to ensuring that the no damage history aircraft that you are putting such faith in is really a no damage aircraft.

[007helicopter]

You have 10 you are looking at ? The Top dollar ones are well specked, kept in Hangers. One owner,No damage History and low hours.
Your engineer checks one of them ! That aircraft had a chute pull, landed at high force and was extensively damaged! It has been well rebuilt.
Would you buy it any where near the price of the others?

Pace I am just basing my opinion on 3 damaged and repaired Cirrus that I personally know the full history and eventual sale prices.

There are plenty on the market at the moment and yes it is very competitive but the figure I mention is what I have seen broadly achieved for one CAPS repaired aircraft, one tail strike, and one run off the end of a runway and quite substantially damaged. No doubt there is a reduction in pricing but in my actual experience closer to A&C's figures.

At the end of the day anything is worth what the market will pay on the day, I fully accept that.

All three of the aircraft I am referring to are 100% fine after several years of operation, with a very high standard of repair and even to the extent on 2 of them Cirrus fully approved the repairs and kept existing warranties in place.

I think the final price would be also relevant to who carried out the repairs and the history of the repair.

[Weheka]

Just getting back to the "stats" regarding your chances of surviving a forced landing after engine failure in this case, or deploying the chute.

"As of 22 November 2012, the CAPS has been activated 32 times with 63 survivors and 11 fatalities in equipped aircraft." Wiki.

They say in all cases where the CAPS was activated within operating limits everyone survived, hence the 100% safety record. They don't seem to count the fatality(s) in one accident where the launch rocket malfunctioned?

I imagine the NTSB data base which someone referred to, in which it gives a 1 in 5 chance of a fatality, would be based on thousands of cases over many years.

Is it a fair to say deploying the chute, rather than carrying out a normal forced landing, is always the safest option based on these one sided statistics?

Personally my old school thinking and training would have me attempting to land the aircraft, I think I would go for the chute option only in the most hopeless situation. (not that I will ever find myself in a CAPS equipped Cirrus anyway)

I have no problem with the pilot deploying the chute in this case, his decision and they both walked away, can't argue with that, but others may have landed the aircraft with an equally good outcome. It's just the stats I have trouble accepting.

[Piper.Classique]

It might be interesting to find the statistics on chute pulls in microlights, where the parachute is actually a rather frequent factory option (at least here in France). Of course the reason for fitting a parachute might just be the 25 kilos extra mauw allowed for a parachute that typically weighs under 12 kilos. Certainly I haven't heard of many being used in anger, most microlights being rather easy to land in a field in the case of engine failure.

[LTCTerry]

5,000', loss of oil, "farm field" was not...

All,

I had a similar situation in an Arrow a number of years ago. What I though was the perfect farmers field like several others around turned out to be an area where pine trees had been clear cut with stumps and burned (burnt?) remains covering the ground. By the time I was close enough to truly evaluate the field it was too late. The aircraft was totaled, but I was fine.

See my web page for more info and pictures: Terry Pitts - N47944 made its last flight

I called my wife to come get me, "I haven't been arrested, but I'm at the sheriff's office, please come get me..."

forty-five minutes earlier I had eaten ice cream with my dad and kids before heading out on a planned two-hour cross-country for an Army Reserve weekend. My wife called my retired-fighter-pilot dad to say she would be late picking up the kids because she had to go get me. My dad obviously knew something had gone wrong.

Any guesses to what went wrong before I share the unfortunately too often repeated mistake? This mistake leads to fatalities in about 50 percent of the cases. In my case, I had planned a night flight, but the airplane came available earlier so I left earlier. Imagine...

Terry

[Pace]

Terry

If you can do such a good job of forcelanding there think what you would have done in a proper field Well done

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

Looking at those pictures, I'm wondering if the gear was down for that landing.

[007helicopter]

Terry excellent outcome and sounds like you were in control flying it all the way down

I guess a typical example of how difficult it is to tell what is a suitable landing surface. Which is what forms the basis of my SOP of using the chute when an off airfield landing is required.

This is the reason I 100% support the actions of the Pilot in this thread.

[007helicopter]

"As of 22 November 2012, the CAPS has been activated 32 times with 63 survivors and 11 fatalities in equipped aircraft." Wiki.

Wiki slightly out of date this was number 39 as far as Cirrus concerned and the success rate is 100% to date when operated within limits.

Clearly this success rate can not last but for me it is good enough and even if success of forced landings is lets say 90% I do not wish to play Russian Roulette with a 1 in 10 chance of serious injury or death when I fly an aircraft with BRS.

[RatherBeFlying]

The big advantage gliders have is that you have a lot more time to examine and select fields. Yes, a good looking field at 1000' is not always so good once you get up close and personal.

In an a/c with a high landing speed and small wheels, the probability of a noseover increases.

But the fatality rate of EF accidents may perhaps be overstated as it's not an accident if the aircraft is not damaged. In fact EFs where the a/c is landed without damage are not reportable; so, we do not have a good statistic.

Now if you would be willing to do a high speed taxi on or even takeoff from a field with a certain crop at a known stage of growth, you would have one type of field suitable for a forced landing. Most such fields work much better when you have bigger wheels and lower landing speeds than a Cirrus. Unless you are well acquainted with the local agriculture and used to landing in fields, CAPS can be a viable way to slant the odds in your favor.

[EclipseN99XG]

New here.
Flying an Eclipse jet.
Previously owned 2 Cirrus.
Glider pilot.

Learning how to quote...
Dear 007helicopter,
1.5 years ago: "Clearly this success rate can not last "

It has lasted!

As of 19 April 2014
43 CAPS Save Events
With 87 survivors (9 serious injuries, 7 minor injuries, 67 uninjured) and 1 fatality (the one at low altitude)

[funfly]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft. and your first concern is the resale value of your aircraft? get real.

Your first concern must be the best way to conserve the life of you and your passenger.

There are options available to you but, unless you are within gliding distance of a landing strip, the one that offers the best chance is pulling the chute - this is the option that will give you the best chance of retaining your life.

[maxred]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft

Well I fly an old school plane, that is not fitted with BRS, so, I plan for best glide speed, and look at where I am going to put it, with some faith in my ability to get it down.

On the way, if I have time, I will attempt to start it again and rescue the situation.

But then I am old school......

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So, you 'old school' pilots, your engine fails at 5000ft

Over East Anglia that quite often gives you a choice of several runways. Some of them miles long, if you don't mind having a discussion with the military after landing.

[Mach Jump]

Your first concern must be the best way to conserve the life of you and your passenger.............pulling the chute - this is the option that will give you the best chance of retaining your life.

No it isn't.

My best option is to find out why the engine has failed and restart it.

My second best option is to make a glide approach to a nearby airport.

MY third best option is to make a glide approach to a suitable landing site in a large field, such as the one that the subject of the OP finally ended up in.

If, at around 1000' none of the above options are available, only then would I even consider giving up all control over the outcome and resorting to a BRS.


MJ

[Jan Olieslagers]

You are definitely old school, MachJump, very much so! Quite correct, of course.

[Mach Jump]

Thankyou Jan.


MJ