The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having lost the engine at 750ft AGL it was 1.5miles and 60 seconds that was 10 secs to check & think 50sec to execute. Was a 200 degree left turn to a suitable field, that was short but had a longer one over the hedge, which I ended up in.
The last thing on my mind was saving the aircraft. She end up with a couple of dents in leading edge of the port wing chopping down a willow bush.
Thoughts in my head, don't stall it in on approach, keep up the speed.
Better to run into the far hedge at low speed. Also if I got it right I had a better than 50/50 chance of walking away.
5000ft would give you a lot of time to check, think and position for a chute pull or forced landing. So I think he may have panicked a bit and 1minute is a bit quick.
I would have liked ATC to have run through an emergence check list, I think this should be standard procedure, as I lost a friend who attempted a turn back after an EFOT at 300ft, stalled it in from 100ft due to low airspeed.
The last thing on my mind was saving the aircraft. She end up with a couple of dents in leading edge of the port wing chopping down a willow bush.
Thoughts in my head, don't stall it in on approach, keep up the speed.
Better to run into the far hedge at low speed. Also if I got it right I had a better than 50/50 chance of walking away.
5000ft would give you a lot of time to check, think and position for a chute pull or forced landing. So I think he may have panicked a bit and 1minute is a bit quick.
I would have liked ATC to have run through an emergence check list, I think this should be standard procedure, as I lost a friend who attempted a turn back after an EFOT at 300ft, stalled it in from 100ft due to low airspeed.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).
All the time you have control of the aeroplane, your fate is in your hands. Once you pull the handle and deploy the chute you have lost it!
I've had three engine failures of which one ended with a forced landing in a field. The other two were on climb out (probably where engine failure is most likely btw). They were both partial and both ended by landings on the airfield. I've also landed out in gliders a couple of times and regularly fly into fields electively.
Yes I'd pull the chute in certain conditions, but it would be last resort!!! I'm confident in my ability to walk away from a forced landing from a height where I had thinking time ... any less and the chute would probably be of no use anyway! Over confident? ... I honestly don't think so!
SS
All the time you have control of the aeroplane, your fate is in your hands. Once you pull the handle and deploy the chute you have lost it!
I've had three engine failures of which one ended with a forced landing in a field. The other two were on climb out (probably where engine failure is most likely btw). They were both partial and both ended by landings on the airfield. I've also landed out in gliders a couple of times and regularly fly into fields electively.
Yes I'd pull the chute in certain conditions, but it would be last resort!!! I'm confident in my ability to walk away from a forced landing from a height where I had thinking time ... any less and the chute would probably be of no use anyway! Over confident? ... I honestly don't think so!
SS
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin except by pulling the chute then it is seriously badly designed, and should not be in service. The mindset of "pull the chute at the first sign of trouble reflects a rubbish training regime.Most spin fatals happen at low level (below the safe pull height) all chute pulls seem to result in serious damage to the aircraft.
I would suggest that the manufacturers re think this.
1) make the rocket capable of arresting the decent at low level & capable of pulling the aircraft upright .
2) The chute should be able to land the aircraft at a speed well within the safe loading of the gear, causing no damage whatsoever.
3) It should be steerable with the chute deployed rather like a paramotor. If the engine still functions it would allow the "pilot" to put it down next to the pub.
I would suggest that the manufacturers re think this.
1) make the rocket capable of arresting the decent at low level & capable of pulling the aircraft upright .
2) The chute should be able to land the aircraft at a speed well within the safe loading of the gear, causing no damage whatsoever.
3) It should be steerable with the chute deployed rather like a paramotor. If the engine still functions it would allow the "pilot" to put it down next to the pub.
I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin except by pulling the chute then it is seriously badly designed
The mindset of "pull the chute at the first sign of trouble reflects a rubbish training regime
It DOES integrate the chute into emergencies handling and encourages it's use based on the unarguable statistics of its success in saving peoples lives: again, as has been posted here many times, there have been far to many people killed with a perfectly good chute undeployed behind them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unarguable statistics?
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a quick squint at the comprehensive summary supplied by dera, certainly quite a few hint at pilot incompetence....but the news that leaped to my attention in the list of chute pulls in the Cirrus is HOW MANY WERE INSPIRED BY ENGINE 'LOSS OF POWER'!
What kind of engine do they use that fails so often!
The critical moment for engine failure and the one that leads to fatality is EFATO when engine power fades on takeoff, not necessarily quits! and the pilot makes the decision to turn back to the airport. Spin in follows. Rather too low for the Cirrus get you out of trouble deployment, isn't it?
Now waiting for all those with a financial interest in this expensive toy to sound off!
What kind of engine do they use that fails so often!
The critical moment for engine failure and the one that leads to fatality is EFATO when engine power fades on takeoff, not necessarily quits! and the pilot makes the decision to turn back to the airport. Spin in follows. Rather too low for the Cirrus get you out of trouble deployment, isn't it?
Now waiting for all those with a financial interest in this expensive toy to sound off!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unarguable statistics?
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
This, by any chance?
Far from unarguable. More like proof many Cirrus pilots should have their licenses revoked immediately.
The statistics are very clear: employed within demonstrated limits, there have been no fatalities amongst pilots using the chute. By contrast there have been several fatal accidents amongst Cirrus pilots who tried to stretch glides or make off airport landings.
I know that MOST off airport landings are successful. But not all of them e.g.
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._042_A_ENG.pdf
Summary: DA20, engine failure, off airport PFL, apparently experienced instructor, 300 hours in type, aircraft with much lower stall speed than a Cirrus, two people killed. It's by no means the only example.
By contrast, as set out above, NO fatalities in within parameters CAPS deployments.
Your point about revoking licences is interesting.
There are about 5500 Cirrus flying and some people buying them, especially second hand, don't get proper transition training. They are, however, IMHO, a minority. Equally, there are bad pilots flying other types as well but that doesn't mean all pilots of those types are stupid or incompetent either.
Cirrus pilots have no monopoly on incompetence or stupidity.
I would suggest, however, that the penalty for stupidity or incompetence should not be death for the pilot and even less so for any passengers on board.
At least the pilots you criticise would be around to have their licence revoked if that was appropriate. There's not much point in revoking the licence of someone who is dead.....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
Following on from my earlier post: one factor that seems to come up more often than it should is Maintenance Induced Failure. Coincidentally, this report on a CAPS save was released yesterday:
ERA12LA473
An extract from it:
"Examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft was fractured and that the crankcase exhibited varying degrees of fretting and lock-slot elongation on the main bearing supports, which is consistent with the application of insufficient torque on the cylinder through-bolts by maintenance personnel. New cylinders had been installed on the engine 113 hours before the accident. Because the cylinders were loose, the oil supply at the No. 2 main journal was shut off and the crankshaft broke, which resulted in the subsequent loss of oil pressure to the engine."
The full report is well worth a read both from the point of view of the cause and from the account it gives of the pilot's decision making process.
Following on from my earlier post: one factor that seems to come up more often than it should is Maintenance Induced Failure. Coincidentally, this report on a CAPS save was released yesterday:
ERA12LA473
An extract from it:
"Examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft was fractured and that the crankcase exhibited varying degrees of fretting and lock-slot elongation on the main bearing supports, which is consistent with the application of insufficient torque on the cylinder through-bolts by maintenance personnel. New cylinders had been installed on the engine 113 hours before the accident. Because the cylinders were loose, the oil supply at the No. 2 main journal was shut off and the crankshaft broke, which resulted in the subsequent loss of oil pressure to the engine."
The full report is well worth a read both from the point of view of the cause and from the account it gives of the pilot's decision making process.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).
In some aircraft, it almost certainly is. Around 50% of off-airport landings in a Long-EZ result in a fatality. For a Piper Cub, you're literally orders of magnitude more likely to walk away. From your moniker I assume you're more likely to be flying something with a low wing loading.
I can't believe the fatalism displayed by a lot of the contributors of this thread! How can anyone assume and engine failure and force landing is a crash! (No wonder the tabloids revel in it!).
In some aircraft, it almost certainly is. Around 50% of off-airport landings in a Long-EZ result in a fatality. For a Piper Cub, you're literally orders of magnitude more likely to walk away. From your moniker I assume you're more likely to be flying something with a low wing loading.
SS
SS
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Cirrus's harder to force land than airliners???
Of course, that wasn't a Cirrus so here's another example. This is a reaction to a Cirrus fatal accident by a close friend of the pilot. As you can see from it, he was pretty upset.
It was originally posted on COPA as part of a debate about CAPS: happily a debate that is finished in that community.
This accident is not the only forced landing fatal in a Cirrus. There has yet to be a fatal accident under correctly deployed CAPS.
The pilot involved was called Manfred Stolle and he died trying to stretch a glide to make an airport. Nobody knows why he didn't pull.....
Quote:
Manfred and I flew our planes to Charleston, SC where Mason picked us up for lunch. Manfred and I would fly somewhere every month or so. Leaving the Charleston FBO ramp we shook hands and I took off first.
I was the last to see him alive.
I heard Departure clear him to 6,500’. A few minutes later I tried to contact him on the agreed 122.75 but got no response. He reported smoke in the cockpit, but I didn’t hear it as I had moved on to the next controller. I flew on to Asheville and learned of his demise at 5pm when Mason called. Mason knew when Manfred’s wife Barbara called him saying the police had come to her house with the news. I flew to the airport of the crash yesterday. Manfred crashed on the airport property, in line with the runway and only a couple hundred yards away. It appears he stalled just after clearing trees adjacent to the airport. The debris field is small. The PFD was pushed back into his face. A witness said the prop wasn’t turning and Mason says the FAA confirmed that, so maybe an engine failure. Why didn’t he pull the chute; was the engine partially operating until short final?
Today I read the COPA posts debating parachute use and it now all sounds so naïve: “If you have control of the plane fly it and land it.” In fact though, you fly the plane while you have control, then you don’t and you die. Manfred had the runway made, then he didn’t. 3 seconds. Had he turned to the field 3 seconds sooner, or climbed to glide speed 3 seconds sooner, . . . How can we possibly make all the right decisions in that situation, the entire episode lasting only a few minutes?
Manfred Stolle was a good pilot. He approached flying with the detached methodical approach as any good German would. He used checklists, he had the hours, he flew regularly, he attended CDMs and other training courses, and he regularly flew with an instructor. He took care of his equipment. He was a better pilot than many of us.
I in no way believe my piloting skills are superior to Manfred’s. I believe and hope this has taught me to see the parachute as a “why not” option rather than a “why” option; a first resort rather than a last resort. I hope you take away the same lesson.
I read posts here from confident (and arrogant and naïve) pilots telling us it’s a mistake to pull the chute when you still have most control over the plane. No engine is no control to me, but not to these people. They tell us which square foot of the runway we should be aiming for our dead stick landing, as if that tidbit of wisdom will make all the difference.
Well, STOP IT.
It is not the percentage play and it is not necessary. You are doing a disservice to the majority of pilots reading COPA. We’re not commercial pilots or military pilots; we’re businessmen and accountants and doctors and software designers who fly 125 hours a year. You are just baiting us into a trap with a high likelihood of an unfortunate outcome.
A parachute pull is the right choice 95% of the time when some control is lost. Boiled down to its essence the decision isn’t as complicated as we make it out to be. You may a) pull the chute and you will live and the insurance company will buy you a new airplane, or b) risk your life to land the plane and get to keep the plane you currently have. Where’s the upside in this choice?
Perhaps the “fly it” advocates believe they are selling a point of view for the 5% situation, but that’s not the way our discussions here read, as evidenced by the folks floating convoluted emergency tactics (as below). If we want to debate the nuances of “well, what if I am over the Everglades and there are alligators down there”, fine, let’s do, it’s a fun mental exercise. But let’s not pretend that we shouldn’t have a damned good reason not to put the chute and be alive when we reach the ground. Perhaps our energies should go towards that exception list: cold water or alligators, consider your other options. Think you might be able to glide to an airport, pull the chute.
Others here are sincerely trying to work out an emergency strategy: “I will still consider an attempted landing but I personally need 200' altitude buffer and 1,000 ft per nm from the airport for a straight in landing (adding 10% to that for every 10 knots of headwind). I'll add 800' to that if I have to make a 90 degree turn, and 1600' if I need to turn 180 degrees.”
The engine explodes. The cockpit goes quiet. Adrenaline floods the brain. You are shocked at the speed the earth is racing toward you as you fight to stabilize at 87 knots. So you pick a close airport, determine its altitude and begin running through these math quizzes, knowing that a mistake by a few seconds may cost you your life. Are you really willing to bet your life you can pull this off? Really?
Pull the chute. It is proven that the chute is the best choice. Mr. Beach has the statistics. Your logic and rationalization do not trump data. It’s a fact. And these facts tell us conclusively that your chance of living to tell about it is much greater under the chute.
So, when you have a loss of control emergency, or see one coming, pick the best available spot of earth, descend to 1500’ or so, slow to 100 kts or so, and pull the chute. On the ride down tell ATC where to come get you. On landing get out of the plane, call your family and tell them you love them. Call the insurance company and tell them where THEIR airplane is. Then post your experience on COPA and allow me to call you a Hero and tell you that I am in awe of your exquisite judgment.
UNQUOTE
But how many airliners have landed off-airport without the result being a controlled crash?
I normally fly at 2-3000 feet; airliners fly at 30k plus. This gives them a much greater chance of there being an airfield within gliding distance, assuming it's over a land-mass when the failure occurs.
I normally fly over rural Wales, where to be honest I would hope to survive a forced landing with my life, but be quite surprised to fly the aircraft again.
I normally fly at 2-3000 feet; airliners fly at 30k plus. This gives them a much greater chance of there being an airfield within gliding distance, assuming it's over a land-mass when the failure occurs.
I normally fly over rural Wales, where to be honest I would hope to survive a forced landing with my life, but be quite surprised to fly the aircraft again.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson river?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this
approach!
I don't consider myself arrogant or ignorant. I'm not highly experienced but I am reasonably experienced. I learnt to fly gliders before powered aeroplanes so maybe that helped me realise that an aeroplane will fly once the donkey quits! That said, I don't think power only pilots are ignorant of that fact either but it does seem to frighten some!
On the Cirrus site they seem have an excuse for every failed deployment saying it was "outside the envelope" .... ok, I accept that. Funny though, how Cirrus seem to be developing into one of the highest fatality light aircraft? Maybe they are just attracting a lot of pilots who really are fatalistic and think "I can just pull the chute if I get into trouble"? Ok this might work in the right circumstances but many such pilots seem ill equipped to then deal with the times when those circumstances are not right.
So ... Why is the fatality rate so high in this "safe" aeroplane? I don't really blame the aeroplane btw.
SS
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this
No engine is no control to me, but not to these people.
I don't consider myself arrogant or ignorant. I'm not highly experienced but I am reasonably experienced. I learnt to fly gliders before powered aeroplanes so maybe that helped me realise that an aeroplane will fly once the donkey quits! That said, I don't think power only pilots are ignorant of that fact either but it does seem to frighten some!
On the Cirrus site they seem have an excuse for every failed deployment saying it was "outside the envelope" .... ok, I accept that. Funny though, how Cirrus seem to be developing into one of the highest fatality light aircraft? Maybe they are just attracting a lot of pilots who really are fatalistic and think "I can just pull the chute if I get into trouble"? Ok this might work in the right circumstances but many such pilots seem ill equipped to then deal with the times when those circumstances are not right.
So ... Why is the fatality rate so high in this "safe" aeroplane? I don't really blame the aeroplane btw.
SS
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Duxford
Age: 45
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question here, from a very green PPL.
We're all aware of the 'land clear' rule so we stay at an appropriate height above built up areas in order to allow a glide to a clear space if the donkey quits.
So if the worst happens and the pilot pops the chute, the plane descends in to a built up area and whilst those onboard are ok, someone on the ground dies. Who's responsible?
Has the pilot breached the 'land clear' rule by not allowing adequate air to glide clear under control of the BRS? Should the pilot have sacrificed the BRS option and attempted a forced landing or was he right to pull the chute regardless of the consequences?
The morally correct answer and legally correct one here may not be the same?
We're all aware of the 'land clear' rule so we stay at an appropriate height above built up areas in order to allow a glide to a clear space if the donkey quits.
So if the worst happens and the pilot pops the chute, the plane descends in to a built up area and whilst those onboard are ok, someone on the ground dies. Who's responsible?
Has the pilot breached the 'land clear' rule by not allowing adequate air to glide clear under control of the BRS? Should the pilot have sacrificed the BRS option and attempted a forced landing or was he right to pull the chute regardless of the consequences?
The morally correct answer and legally correct one here may not be the same?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting question Ds3
In most cases an emergency trumps all legal rules in an effort to save lives ... But in the scenario you describe, I wonder?
SS
In most cases an emergency trumps all legal rules in an effort to save lives ... But in the scenario you describe, I wonder?
SS
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorttripper
Your life, your choice.
Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.
I am not going to spend the time trying to convince you of that: we have been through all this before in a thread which got locked (the Cheltenham CAPS pull) and where Rick Beach was subjected to a barrage of abuse when he did publish the data so, if you can be bothered, go look there.
The reason I post in these arguments is only because there are inexperienced Cirrus pilots out there who may not have had proper transition training and may have the same attitude as you. I don't want them to die with a perfectly good chute behind them.
Your life, your choice.
Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.
I am not going to spend the time trying to convince you of that: we have been through all this before in a thread which got locked (the Cheltenham CAPS pull) and where Rick Beach was subjected to a barrage of abuse when he did publish the data so, if you can be bothered, go look there.
The reason I post in these arguments is only because there are inexperienced Cirrus pilots out there who may not have had proper transition training and may have the same attitude as you. I don't want them to die with a perfectly good chute behind them.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorttripper
Your life, your choice.
Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.
Your life, your choice.
Unfortunately, the assertions you make run counter to the established facts.
If I'd been flying at night, in IMC, over a mountain range or similar, then YES YES YES!!! ... I'm no luddite! I'd pull the bloody handle! I can see the benefits of fluttering down under a parachute as the chances of survival are much better (though not guaranteed whatever the statistics say!). However, over open fields at height with a perfectly serviceable engineless light aircraft? .... I'll trust my own proven statistics thankyou very much!
SS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno, there is not much information on your potted biography: PPL, IR, and thats about it. How many hours have you flown? in what aircraft? and why are you so very passionate about the Cirrus? I presume you own one?
Do you have the agency as well?
Those of us who had to fly without being able to take out a second mortgage have had to trim our sails to the wind. We don't fly in the Rocky Mountains without some pretty good information on the terraine. We maintain situational awareness. We keep current and informed. And perhaps most important, if conditions get worse, we will say sod it and do a 180.
I have flown light aircraft in the USA, the UK, France, and Spain. I have flown gliders in the Cairngorns, in the Black Mountains in Wales, and in the Alps. We do wear parachutes in the glider; that's because we fly very close indeed to other gliders and to the rock face. And we don't worry about engine trouble...havn't got one!
As for the typical Cirrus pilot, you mention "businesmen, accountants, doctors and softwear designers who fly 125 hours a year"
I would be very surprised if the busy professionals listed above actually manage to accumulate that many hours....
Seems to me that the life saving Cirrus rocket launched parachute is lulling these wealthy busy people into the illusion that money can buy safety. Doesn't help if you fly into crap weather beyond your ability, or hit another aircraft because you didn't keep a good lookout, or flew when you were tired or hungover or mad at your wife. Engine failure is the only problem that the Cirrus chute can cure, and for that you have to be at the required altitude.
We had a gormless pilot in a tree not far from Banbury who pulled his cirrus chute when he got preoccupied punching in data in his computer to
perform a 180 turn because the weather was getting worse! and he found himself in a very unusual attitude. Probably tired, in a hurry to get home.
He spent quite a while in the tree before the locals helped him down.
Do you have the agency as well?
Those of us who had to fly without being able to take out a second mortgage have had to trim our sails to the wind. We don't fly in the Rocky Mountains without some pretty good information on the terraine. We maintain situational awareness. We keep current and informed. And perhaps most important, if conditions get worse, we will say sod it and do a 180.
I have flown light aircraft in the USA, the UK, France, and Spain. I have flown gliders in the Cairngorns, in the Black Mountains in Wales, and in the Alps. We do wear parachutes in the glider; that's because we fly very close indeed to other gliders and to the rock face. And we don't worry about engine trouble...havn't got one!
As for the typical Cirrus pilot, you mention "businesmen, accountants, doctors and softwear designers who fly 125 hours a year"
I would be very surprised if the busy professionals listed above actually manage to accumulate that many hours....
Seems to me that the life saving Cirrus rocket launched parachute is lulling these wealthy busy people into the illusion that money can buy safety. Doesn't help if you fly into crap weather beyond your ability, or hit another aircraft because you didn't keep a good lookout, or flew when you were tired or hungover or mad at your wife. Engine failure is the only problem that the Cirrus chute can cure, and for that you have to be at the required altitude.
We had a gormless pilot in a tree not far from Banbury who pulled his cirrus chute when he got preoccupied punching in data in his computer to
perform a 180 turn because the weather was getting worse! and he found himself in a very unusual attitude. Probably tired, in a hurry to get home.
He spent quite a while in the tree before the locals helped him down.