The most unnecessary chute pull ever?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure some of the 58 would have died even using the chute 
It's really not cut and dry one way or the other is it?
I wonder how they compare to other aircraft? To be fair, I don't know what the fatal accident rate per hour of flying is for most aircraft makes??? ... But 118 seems very high for the 6000 or so airframes produced so far? I'd love to know. I might be more convinced if it compared favourably ... Though for an aeroplane designed to be safe I'd hope it would be a lot better.
SS
It's really not cut and dry one way or the other is it?
I wonder how they compare to other aircraft? To be fair, I don't know what the fatal accident rate per hour of flying is for most aircraft makes??? ... But 118 seems very high for the 6000 or so airframes produced so far? I'd love to know. I might be more convinced if it compared favourably ... Though for an aeroplane designed to be safe I'd hope it would be a lot better.
SS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that any of the 58 would have died if they'd used the chute. There have been a number of fatal Cirrus accidents where the parachute couldn't have made a difference - most notably flying into terrain in IMC. But the 58 are the ones which happened in situations where other pilots had pulled the chute, and everyone on board lived.
If you use the parachute high enough - about 400ft in level flight, or 920ft in a spin - and slow enough (demonstrated speed in certifcation was 135kt, but there have been successful deployments at 187kt and only one parachute failure, which occurred at something like 270kt), then you will live.
The Cirrus fatal accident rate was initially slightly worse than the GA average. Recently it has improved significantly - quite probably because more people have been using their parachutes.
The average accident rate, using NTSB data, for GA flying is 1.24 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flying. If you limit the selection to personal and business flying (i.e. not flight training), the rate is 2.38 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. The Cirrus rate is 1.57 over the last 3 years, and 1.07 over the last 12 months. There is lots of data freely available on the COPA website (www.cirruspilots.org).
If you use the parachute high enough - about 400ft in level flight, or 920ft in a spin - and slow enough (demonstrated speed in certifcation was 135kt, but there have been successful deployments at 187kt and only one parachute failure, which occurred at something like 270kt), then you will live.
The Cirrus fatal accident rate was initially slightly worse than the GA average. Recently it has improved significantly - quite probably because more people have been using their parachutes.
The average accident rate, using NTSB data, for GA flying is 1.24 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flying. If you limit the selection to personal and business flying (i.e. not flight training), the rate is 2.38 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. The Cirrus rate is 1.57 over the last 3 years, and 1.07 over the last 12 months. There is lots of data freely available on the COPA website (www.cirruspilots.org).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That in response to Pace's point about a pilot living with the fact that they may kill someone on the ground?
What makes you think you cannot kill someone with a conventional forced landing?
In fact with a conventional forced landing you carry more energy, and are likely to cover more distance. So on the one hand the propensity to cause injury is greater, but, on the other, you might, and I emphasize might, be more selective about your landing site.
I suspect this is just another example of unfounded speculation not supported by any evidence that one landing is any more likely to cause harm to third parties than the other.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it about this subject that makes the "pull the chute" brigade so blinkered to any argument against it???
Nearly all of the posts by pilots who question the wisdom of using the BRS at the slightest hint of trouble have acknowledged that it is a worthwhile safety device. All they do is question its use in certain circumstances and speculate that it may encourage slightly more reckless flying? Those who own or fly BRS equipped aircraft seem to defend the system without question as if it's faultless?
I'm starting to think there's some brainwashing going on somewhere?
Oh and yes .... This is one of those late night after wine postings that is a bit tongue in cheek. No doubt the Cirrus brigade will jump on me yet again!
SS
Nearly all of the posts by pilots who question the wisdom of using the BRS at the slightest hint of trouble have acknowledged that it is a worthwhile safety device. All they do is question its use in certain circumstances and speculate that it may encourage slightly more reckless flying? Those who own or fly BRS equipped aircraft seem to defend the system without question as if it's faultless?
I'm starting to think there's some brainwashing going on somewhere?
Oh and yes .... This is one of those late night after wine postings that is a bit tongue in cheek. No doubt the Cirrus brigade will jump on me yet again!
SS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you sober up, perhaps try and give a coherent argument against it? In your post at 20:52 UK time you asked how Cirrus accident data compared to other aircraft. I gave you some clear data. Your follow-up makes it clear that I was wasting my time.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortstripper has your earlier post be pruned?
My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.
I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.
Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.
I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.
Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortstripper has your earlier post be pruned?
My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.
I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.
Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
My quote was more intended as a comment on a generally cited belief.
I dont think the cirrus lobby is biased, its more a case that there are so many irrational arguments about the chute, that they spend their time dispelling those but really hoping for a rational debate.
Nothing wrong with a glass of wine or two hope it was good stuff.
No my earlier post wasn't "pruned" 
Sorry if I came across a bit spiky but your comment was addressed to my post and didn't appear as a general one.
When you sober up, perhaps try and give a coherent argument against it? In your post at 20:52 UK time you asked how Cirrus accident data compared to other aircraft. I gave you some clear data. Your follow-up makes it clear that I was wasting my time.
SS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression from a number of expert posters that the Cirrus is not a very good glider. (and my long ago experience with a Franklin engine has given me a strong preference for Lycoming!)
If all you power pilots simply shut down your engines and seriously took up gliding you would be much much safer! We seldom fly at night, in poor weather, or IMC.....though we do fly in interesting terraine.
And there is no pressure involved in persuading a reluctant family to come along for the ride...most cross country pilots fly alone!
If all you power pilots simply shut down your engines and seriously took up gliding you would be much much safer! We seldom fly at night, in poor weather, or IMC.....though we do fly in interesting terraine.
And there is no pressure involved in persuading a reluctant family to come along for the ride...most cross country pilots fly alone!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wickford
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, I think the chute is probably the best safety item ever put in an aircraft and I for one would definitely have one if it could be put in my aircraft. I also like the Cirrus aircraft, there are quite a few of them at my airfield.
BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk. I have seen this with my own eyes down at my airfield with some (and I do say some not all) Cirrus pilots electing to take the chance when others will not even consider going up.
Also, the 'pull the chute at any sign of danger' attitude is fine and probably would save your life in many circumstances. But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.
I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk. I have seen this with my own eyes down at my airfield with some (and I do say some not all) Cirrus pilots electing to take the chance when others will not even consider going up.
Also, the 'pull the chute at any sign of danger' attitude is fine and probably would save your life in many circumstances. But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.
I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some here take comments as against Cirrus aircraft. It's pilots or the chute and respond in a very defensive manner!
The fact is the Cirrus is the first mass produced aircraft to have a standard BRS and it is without doubt a huge contribution to safety! The idea of reliably lowering the aircraft and it's occupants to the ground is very appealing!
But that fact alone will generate discussion as some of the proposed uses fly I. The face of conventional training.
There are those who promote the chute for any engine failure!
I see that Cirrus do not back this stance as in the FM the procedure stated by Cirrus is to glide to a suitable landing area and to perform a FL!
Only with no suitable landing area do they quote " Consider" the use of the chute ! Yet many promote it's use for any situation where the pilot feels threatened!
We are talking about GA PPL pilots!
Their currency. Ability and experience vary enormously so extra diligence needs to be taken not to attempt trips they would not do in a conventional un chuted aircraft.
Flying in ones limits becomes even more important as well as the decision making of when and where to pull
Pace
The fact is the Cirrus is the first mass produced aircraft to have a standard BRS and it is without doubt a huge contribution to safety! The idea of reliably lowering the aircraft and it's occupants to the ground is very appealing!
But that fact alone will generate discussion as some of the proposed uses fly I. The face of conventional training.
There are those who promote the chute for any engine failure!
I see that Cirrus do not back this stance as in the FM the procedure stated by Cirrus is to glide to a suitable landing area and to perform a FL!
Only with no suitable landing area do they quote " Consider" the use of the chute ! Yet many promote it's use for any situation where the pilot feels threatened!
We are talking about GA PPL pilots!
Their currency. Ability and experience vary enormously so extra diligence needs to be taken not to attempt trips they would not do in a conventional un chuted aircraft.
Flying in ones limits becomes even more important as well as the decision making of when and where to pull
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk.
Firstly, there is a chance that a reckless pilot might take a stupid risk because they think the chute protects them from that and I am sure that must have happened and it is wrong.
The way to address that is through training and mentoring and it is covered extensively in the transition training and CPPPs I have been banging on about in previous posts and has been discussed often on COPA.
Secondly, though, there is the reassurance it gives in “normal” operations, especially flying in IMC or at night. I remember doing my night rating in a Robin and wondering what I would really do if the engine failed.
I have never flown any aircraft other than a Cirrus in serious IMC, but I have to say that I wouldn't fancy needing a forced landing either on a dark night or under a 200-400 ft cloud base without knowing I have the chute. Obviously other pilots do fly their non-CAPS aircraft in those conditions, and I don't for a moment blame them for doing so, it's just my personal view.
But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.
I would draw the contrast between that and an engine out aircraft without a chute.
Also, remember that a light aircraft hitting at 60 KTS carries about ten times the energy of one landing under CAPS at 17 knots. Yes, in the former case you have an element of control that you don't have under the chute but, as the picture I posted in an earlier reply shows, that's by no means an assurance of a good outcome either.
I would suggest that using what altitude you have to glide away from vulnerable areas and then deploying the chute is almost always going to be the best (or at any rate the least bad!) outcome.
I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - you will recall we have been here before in terms of what Cirrus do and dont recommend.
I dont know the official reason but I suspect that Cirrus will "never" recommend using the chute in "all" circumstances because their lawyers have made clear that would not be a good idea. It wouldnt be a good idea because there isnt (or wasnt) the evidence to prove the chute will most likely result in a better outcome and, even if there is that evidence now, it would still be difficult to counter a legal argument that in a particular situation a conventional FL wouldnt have been better - with the prosecuting lawyers knowing that since the pilot had used the chute (and killed himself) no one could prove what would have happened if he hadnt pulled the chute - you get my drift.
I imagine to ever make the use of the chute a SOP would require a program of testing and certifying that the FAA could never approve and even if they did would be so costly as to make it economically nonviable.
So in the real world we are left developing a SOP from real world experience which is what COPA have done. As the evidence accumulates doubtless the recommendations will become more refined and statistically more reliable BUT no one will ever be able to safe the chute offers a guarantee and is ALWAYS the best alternative all that it might be possible to say is that statistically it is the best alternative. That is a very different matter.
So the chute doesnt offer certainty any more than a forced landing offers certainty - the only certainty on offer is an extra engine with enough power to enable the flight to be completed with a pilot competent to fly on just the extra engine while still relying on that engine to keep turning.
I dont know the official reason but I suspect that Cirrus will "never" recommend using the chute in "all" circumstances because their lawyers have made clear that would not be a good idea. It wouldnt be a good idea because there isnt (or wasnt) the evidence to prove the chute will most likely result in a better outcome and, even if there is that evidence now, it would still be difficult to counter a legal argument that in a particular situation a conventional FL wouldnt have been better - with the prosecuting lawyers knowing that since the pilot had used the chute (and killed himself) no one could prove what would have happened if he hadnt pulled the chute - you get my drift.
I imagine to ever make the use of the chute a SOP would require a program of testing and certifying that the FAA could never approve and even if they did would be so costly as to make it economically nonviable.
So in the real world we are left developing a SOP from real world experience which is what COPA have done. As the evidence accumulates doubtless the recommendations will become more refined and statistically more reliable BUT no one will ever be able to safe the chute offers a guarantee and is ALWAYS the best alternative all that it might be possible to say is that statistically it is the best alternative. That is a very different matter.
So the chute doesnt offer certainty any more than a forced landing offers certainty - the only certainty on offer is an extra engine with enough power to enable the flight to be completed with a pilot competent to fly on just the extra engine while still relying on that engine to keep turning.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortstripper
Blinkered? Pot? Kettle?
No, we just try to point out what it can do and correct the misrepresentation of how it should be used that you keep parroting. We justify what we say by presenting evidence of what it has already done.
By contrast, it is interesting that the only time you have actually posted any evidence here, it actually destroyed the argument you were trying to use it to prove.
Brain washing is really only useful if you have a dirty mind. Even then, it implies you actually have a brain to wash.......
If your vision is not too blurred, hopefully you will see the bulge in my cheek where my tongue is.....
Cheersh!
What is it about this subject that makes the "pull the chute" brigade so blinkered to any argument against it???
Nearly all of the posts by pilots who question the wisdom of using the BRS at the slightest hint of trouble have acknowledged that it is a worthwhile safety device. All they do is question its use in certain circumstances and speculate that it may encourage slightly more reckless flying? Those who own or fly BRS equipped aircraft seem to defend the system without question as if it's faultless?
By contrast, it is interesting that the only time you have actually posted any evidence here, it actually destroyed the argument you were trying to use it to prove.
I'm starting to think there's some brainwashing going on somewhere?
Oh and yes .... This is one of those late night after wine postings that is a bit tongue in cheek. No doubt the Cirrus brigade will jump on me yet again!
Cheersh!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno:
One sentence that wholly explains your attitude.
Its common for those with little experience to think they know better than the measured arguements of those who have gone before...teenager syndrome
I have never flown any aircraft other than a Cirrus in serious IMC
Its common for those with little experience to think they know better than the measured arguements of those who have gone before...teenager syndrome
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone Ranger
Thank you for your measured, considered and closely reasoned comment.
As I posted earlier in this thread, I fly over 200 hours a year as a GA pilot, have well over 1000 hours PIC IFR time, over 30% of it in actual IMC and have done a considerable amount of training both in aircraft and full motion simulators. I take all aspects of safety very seriously indeed.
I don't see how the fact that I choose to fly a Cirrus should reflect adversely on my attitudes or abilities as a pilot?
As for your comments on "measured arguments": please read all of the posts I have made to this thread, before my last one
and tell me which of the arguments I have made has been less than measured and not supported by factual evidence even if you don't agree with what I say.
As for being a teenager again: I wish!!
Thank you for your measured, considered and closely reasoned comment.
As I posted earlier in this thread, I fly over 200 hours a year as a GA pilot, have well over 1000 hours PIC IFR time, over 30% of it in actual IMC and have done a considerable amount of training both in aircraft and full motion simulators. I take all aspects of safety very seriously indeed.
I don't see how the fact that I choose to fly a Cirrus should reflect adversely on my attitudes or abilities as a pilot?
As for your comments on "measured arguments": please read all of the posts I have made to this thread, before my last one
and tell me which of the arguments I have made has been less than measured and not supported by factual evidence even if you don't agree with what I say.As for being a teenager again: I wish!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
I have the good grace to concede to valid points raised and anybody reading my posts can see that. By contrast it is interesting to note that all you ever do is dissect other peoples posts, take their points out of context to try and make it appear that they have no valid point.
I have never said the CAPS system is a bad thing in itself. I have never said the Cirrus is a bad aircraft. All I have asked is why it has such a poor safety record (or appears to have). That has pretty well been answered before you go off on one again btw. I have conceded to the point that I do not know how it compares to other types (individual comparable types not just other GA) but it does seem to have a high number of fatalities. Again this has been answered to a large extent by the fact that many of the accidents were early on and recent training has addressed many of the issues. I have actually started to appreciate the CAPS system a lot more by some of the things I've read on here. However, I still cannot accept the "I will die unless I pull the chute" argument that seems to come across from people like you. Anybody but a fool would not use a parachute as a last ditch "get out of jail card", but given all that I have read I would still go for a forced landing unless I seriously thought it was unwise.
If you want to carry on picking my posts to bits, you go right ahead, but I'm done.
SS
I have the good grace to concede to valid points raised and anybody reading my posts can see that. By contrast it is interesting to note that all you ever do is dissect other peoples posts, take their points out of context to try and make it appear that they have no valid point.
I have never said the CAPS system is a bad thing in itself. I have never said the Cirrus is a bad aircraft. All I have asked is why it has such a poor safety record (or appears to have). That has pretty well been answered before you go off on one again btw. I have conceded to the point that I do not know how it compares to other types (individual comparable types not just other GA) but it does seem to have a high number of fatalities. Again this has been answered to a large extent by the fact that many of the accidents were early on and recent training has addressed many of the issues. I have actually started to appreciate the CAPS system a lot more by some of the things I've read on here. However, I still cannot accept the "I will die unless I pull the chute" argument that seems to come across from people like you. Anybody but a fool would not use a parachute as a last ditch "get out of jail card", but given all that I have read I would still go for a forced landing unless I seriously thought it was unwise.
If you want to carry on picking my posts to bits, you go right ahead, but I'm done.
SS
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is serious IMC anyway?
The wx is either ****e or its lovely.
Your either flying IFR with your instrument head on be it IMC or VMC or your flying VFR in VMC.
When you start dicking about trying to take the easy VFR option and then getting caught with your privates hanging out is when your likely to screw it up.
Its a lesson I learned years ago always plan for the worst and 99% of the time it never happens. The 1% you end up in the poo you more than glad for putting the effort in on the planning side.
The wx is either ****e or its lovely.
Your either flying IFR with your instrument head on be it IMC or VMC or your flying VFR in VMC.
When you start dicking about trying to take the easy VFR option and then getting caught with your privates hanging out is when your likely to screw it up.
Its a lesson I learned years ago always plan for the worst and 99% of the time it never happens. The 1% you end up in the poo you more than glad for putting the effort in on the planning side.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jock
Of course you're right, it is either VMC or IMC and you are either flying VFR or IFR, I chose the wrong words to make my point.
If you recall I was talking about risk homeostasis and people taking stupid chances because they have CAPS available.
What I was trying to say was that there are things I'm uncomfortable doing without CAPS as opposed to silly risks I'm prepared to take because I do have it.
One of those things is flying any SEP to minima in IMC because I don't fancy a forced landing in those conditions, although I know that plenty of people do it every day (and I don't criticise them for doing so at all!) and the chances of a failure at the wrong moment are small.
Of course you're right, it is either VMC or IMC and you are either flying VFR or IFR, I chose the wrong words to make my point.
If you recall I was talking about risk homeostasis and people taking stupid chances because they have CAPS available.
What I was trying to say was that there are things I'm uncomfortable doing without CAPS as opposed to silly risks I'm prepared to take because I do have it.
One of those things is flying any SEP to minima in IMC because I don't fancy a forced landing in those conditions, although I know that plenty of people do it every day (and I don't criticise them for doing so at all!) and the chances of a failure at the wrong moment are small.
