Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[Aphrican]

My questions (and answers) :

- Is anyone involved in aviation (manufacturers, pilots, mechanics, controllers, linemen etc) perfect? No
- Should everyone involved strive for perfection even if it is unobtainable? Yes
- If someone makes a mistake do they need to die? No
- Is the BRS a relatively new and valuable tool available to some pilots to potentially stay alive after making a mistake? Yes
- Does risk homeostasis exist? Yes
- Is risk homeostasis a factor that Cirrus pilots need to consider more carefully than most GA pilots? Yes
- Are Cirrus pilots inferior to other GA pilots because they have the BRS available to them? No

[Steevo25]

I have been reading this thread with interest as it does strike a few chords with what I personally already suspected. The question of 'Does a BRS swing the balance of whether the pilot will fly or not?'.

Where my aircraft is based, there are 3 x Cirrus SR22 down there. One is owned by a fairly famous person. There have been many times that I have been down there and the weather has been very marginal. So marginal in fact that the air around the airfield is empty and all the aircrafts are on the ground.

I have been in the restaurant where everyone is talking about the weather and standing there looking out the window with iPhones/iPads in full use checking Metars, TAFs and weather forecasts.

Just as you are standing there, you hear the hum of engines starting up and going past the window is a Cirrus aircraft. Minutes later up in to the sky it goes and very quickly disappears in to the cloud.

There have been many occasions where I have seen this happen. I have also over heard the planning conversation before the flight took place where the pilots were discussing whether to go up or not.

Now I know that these aircrafts are well equipped and I know the pilots flying these particular aircrafts are IMC rated with a fair few hours behind them. But there are many other aircrafts down there also fairly highly equipped flown by pilots with similar or better qualifications and experience.

Personally, I think the parachute is a great advancement and I myself would love one on my aircraft. In fact I would love a Cirrus but my budget cannot stretch that far. But I do feel from listening and seeing that it can make many who have them feel they are indestructible. I have witnessed cases where it has tipped the balance of whether to fly or not.

I was always taught that with aviation, if there is any doubt then do not fly. Having a chute, for some people, does seem to remove that element of doubt.

[Mariner9]

But so what if its true that Pilots change their go/no go decisions based on a parachute fitted to their aircraft?

Surely the safety fit and equipment level of the aircraft is a valid (and vital) part of the planning process?

You could make the same accusations about (for instance) a FIKI kit, or even simpler, an AI & TC.

Saying parachutes make pilots push the limits is missing the point. The limits should be set by the equipment fit of the aircraft, and (of course) the skill/currency of the pilot.

[Pace]

Mariner exactly ! But it is the pilot flying within his and the aircrafts limits which is important! Natural caution in an in chuted aircraft and the pilot knows he could be dead ! In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!

Pace

[Mariner9]

In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!

But I still fail to see why that's apparently seen by some contributors to this thread as a bad thing in general, or in any way connected to the BRS deployment that is the subject of this thread.

I'd happily have flown in a suitable a/c in the reported weather conditions, BRS fitted or not. I suspect (but don't of course know) the pilot concerned would do the same. Thankfully, when he got into some (as yet unknown) difficulty, he had a BRS to save the day.

[Steevo25]

I agree Mariner that there are many items in an aircraft that could change your decision of whether to fly or not. But these are usually planned. If you are flying IMC then you know you are going to use an AI.

But a chute is something you would never 'plan' to use. It should be treated the same as a fire extinguisher and only ever used in an emergency.

You wouldn't file a flight plan that said I take off from X but there may be a chance that I cannot land at Y so I am going to pull the chute so I can get in a field.

For all intense and purposes your planning and perception should all be done whilst you pretend that your aircraft does not have a chute. The chute is a last resort when if all your good planning goes wrong for a an unforeseen reason and there is no other alternative. Even then, for the safety of people on the ground, if other methods are safely possible then they should be tried first.

[Mariner9]

You wouldn't file a flight plan that said I take off from X but there may be a chance that I cannot land at Y so I am going to pull the chute so I can get in a field.

No I wouldn't. Nor would you, or anyone sane enough to hold a pilots licence. But for some reason Cirrus pilots seem to get tarred with this brush.

M9 (Not a Cirrus pilot)

[englishal]

Mariner exactly ! But it is the pilot flying within his and the aircrafts limits which is important! Natural caution in an in chuted aircraft and the pilot knows he could be dead ! In a chuted aircraft there is a way out which is being seen as very reliable so it's only natural pilots will push that bit further if they know a big mistake does not mean death!

You could argue the same about a Twin, or one with dual alternators, or dual vacuum system, or backup AI's etc.....I would never plan on a flight using a bit of emergency kit as part of the pre-flight planning i.e. I would never plan to fly over mountains, EXPECTING to have an emergency. But there would be no reason NOT to plan a flight across the mountains, at night, if you expected the weather to be ok and your equipment to remain operational. It would only be reckless if you had reason to expect your aircraft to fail.

However with experience one becomes more of a chicken. My buddy won't even fly across the channel in a SEP these days as he is used to twin turbojets . That is not to say that flying across the channel is stupid, or reckless, it just means that his personal limits are higher than mine. I'd mitigate the risk by carrying an EPIRB, ELT and a life raft and life jackets.

[Steevo25]

I personally am not referring to Cirrus pilots in general. My comments are not also referring to the general population either.

But with any safety device, it does add an element of confidence knowing that there is a way out if things go horribly wrong. I guess it seems to be aimed at Cirrus pilots as they are one of the few that have the chute system by default so it stands out. Also, the Cirrus aircraft is certified well above most over aircraft that have BRS systems fitted so those aircrafts are not certified to fly in some of the conditions that Cirrus would be allowed to. If there were more aircrafts that had a parachute fitted as standard then I think the focus would be taken away from Cirrus pilots in general.

I find it very difficult to comment on this one incident as the facts to what actually happened are very much unknown. Until that time it could have been a very genuine and unavoidable reason why the chute was deployed. Once the facts are out, it could go one of 2 ways. If it was something like a rough running engine and the pilot pulled the chute out of panic then I am sure the comments will not go in his favour. If it turns out that something physically went wrong with the aircraft that was unrecoverable through no fault of his own then the comments regarding chutes are going to be very much in the favour of the pilot.

It could have been a very different story. The aircraft came down in a populated area that could have caused injury or death to many people on the ground (a school not too far away). If the incident was that bad that the pilot had no other option but to take that risk then there isn't really much to say. But if it turns out that the incident was actually quite minor and pulling the chute was just a very easy way out then I am sure people will have a lot to say.

[cockney steve]

It has been stated that safety- equipment encourages risk-taking....initially, that may well be true.

having grown up in the pre-seat-belt era, Ican state that there was, indeed an acute conciousness of it.
Currently I'm driving a turbocharged 2-litre Volvo with some sort of traction control, ABS, airbags all over the place etc.
I do not think of these things when I go anywhere!
if conditions are such, and I'm in the mood, I may use more of the considerable performance and handling envelope than normal....but I never consider,"OOH! if I overcook it, there are all these gismos that "might" work and save my stupid neck"

Because of the nature of Aviation and the licencing requirements, it seems to attract people from the higher levels of the gene-pool.
Unfortunately, almost any knuckle-dragger can get a vehicle-driving licence-and some just omit that formality!- That, I'd suggest, has more to do with the risk-assesssment or lack thereof.

If I were considering a similar aircraft to a Cirrus (a taildragger-fan actually) Then, certainly the BRS would have a huge influence on my buying-decision. As regards it's eventual utilisation, I'd hope never to try it......Increased insurance or refusal and severe damage to my Airframe would be uppermost in my mind....save the aircraft and it'll save me!-or am I being simplistic?

Whether it attracts the "more money than sense" brigade, I don't know.

If a "bump" is INEVITABLE then safety-systems give a better chance of a happy outcome....by that time, you've already run out of skill and ideas so, on balance, a BRS is a huge plus.

[mad_jock]

or am I being simplistic?

Your more being personal to yourself.

Its this age old thing of if your an arty type or a Science engineery type.

As much as people would like to think otherwise our grey matter is wired differently. What seems glaringly obvious to some is white mans magic to others. If we were all the same we would only need half the regulation that we have today. And it doesn't matter how you regulate there is a group of people who will find a work around just because they can.

It all comes down to if your risk assessment is driven by science or by feeling.

The only time you will get the true safety advantage of the chute showing through is when all the pilots plan and operate as if it isn't in the back.

Personally I am quite interested in the results of everyone in Europe having to have the yearly IR test and if this produces a noticeable effect in lose of control incidents EU v US.

[007helicopter]

Frankly with statistics you can use them to promote whatever you want but I still feel a lot more thought needs to go into training over the chute and its use.
You and others here write as if we are two camps the for the chute and the against the chute. I am totally for the chute but not blindly used

Pace

I read recently that we should train to avoid the use of the chute, that makes perfect sense and I think that agree's with what you and many others are saying.

Also we should train when to use it if things do go wrong for what ever reason and be prepared to use it, it is certainly part of my briefing before every departure.

My understanding is quite a lot of Cirrus Pilot's (very vague I know) are not properly trained on when to use the chute, in fact for the first couple of years of ownership I would go as far as saying that I had not seriously thought about the what, why and when scenario's. I like to think now after quite a few hours in the Sim I am crystal clear on my own SOP for CAPS activation and hope in the heat of the moment make that decision in time if it ever occur's.

Mainly thanks to COPA it is now very firmly in my mind as one of the tools we have.

In terms of blindly using it as a comfort blanket and alternative to training I guess this must apply to a small number of pilots but not an attitude I have ever come across.

[007helicopter]

The only time you will get the true safety advantage of the chute showing through is when all the pilots plan and operate as if it isn't in the back.

MJ many a Cirrus Pilot has persihed with a perfectly good chute still intact and not used.

Not sure if they felt they could deal with the situation, forgot it was there, had the Pin in and could not remove it in time or simply unaware of it as a viable option.

And why should we plan to operate as if it is not there, in Pace's example that he would fly at night because it has a chute, compared to not with out a chute in a SEP, what is wrong with that?

[Pace]

007

i am sure if a wrote a list of when and when I would not use the chute it would probably not be miles away from your own.
Not over a built up area if I could glide clear to a better area and then pull it or force land.
Imminent incapacitation at any time.
Engine failure? Not over open fields or strong wind days but yes over inhospitable terrain dense forestation etc.
Structural failure yes anywhere.
Loss of control and unable to recover? Yes but maybe get some proper training on how to fly!
At night YES
Over fog banks YES
Over water smooth maybe rough and windy probably.
Important as you say is to have a plan and be clear in your own head

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

US Car fatality statisitcs expressed as fatalities per 1,000,000 miles

1960 = 5.0

2010 = 1.1

What changed in those 50 years ? Did the drivers get 5 times better or did new technology save lives ?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

Personally I am quite interested in the results of everyone in Europe having to have the yearly IR test and if this produces a noticeable effect in lose of control incidents EU v US.

Why would you expect to see any changes in loss of control accidents? Loss of control by rated pilots in the US or Europe is very rare (and normally associated in the US with severe convective activity or icing). The main issue is failure to follow the approach or departure procedure.

My understanding is the private IFR accident rate is similar US vs Europe despite the much more extensive use of night flying in the US. US corporate aviation is substantially safer than European AOC charter, and there is no known statistical safety gap between Nreg European IFR operations and EASA IFR operations (not withstanding the possible issues raised by this specific incident)

[007helicopter]

Engine failure? Not over open fields or strong wind days

Pace our lists as would many others be virtually identical, other than the old chestnut..

You would prefer to land in what appears a doable open field.

I would prefer the chute as a safer option for all off airport landing's. (other than the strong 30 knot + wind factor when a decision will be made based on terrain)

As per my previously done to death reasons of not knowing surface, wires, stumps, ditches, water logged etc. I think it is fine to have a personal preference based on perception of risk for each. The Cirrus small wheels and Cart Wheeling on a rough or boggy surface are a real factor.

Anyway engine failure is pretty rare and most fatalities are loss of control or Pilot error.

There are a surprising amount of Cirrus fatalities due to botched landings, botched go around's, and base to final turn resulting in a stall. None of which the CAPS helps in any way and all Pilot Error, often down to poor or inadequate training (from what I understand)

Regarding N936CT the incident plane, just curious does any one know where it was based?

Or How the Pilot is doing post incident or any feed back?

I imagine he is bruised physically and mentally, must never the less be quite a traumatic experience despite walking away.

[sdbeach]

Seems that the discussion became quite expansive in the past few hours. Good to see. Let me go back to something that merits discussion.

Originally Posted by Pace

you have failed to discuss that concern or the effects of winds on descending aircraft under a chute.

You presume in the case of an engine failure that the aircraft will descend vertically at 25 mph ( I use mph to compare car speeds) you presume a still Day !

Take a windy day say 40 mph winds does your advice hold true to pull the chute in the event of engine failure?

You will now descend at 25 mph but travel horizontally at speed slamming into hard objects at speeds which in a car could kill you and under no control from you the pilot. You would experience not just a descent impact but a forward impact too.

Has happened. Luna, NM, was a parachute pull with winds aloft over 30 knots. Surface winds were not measurable in that uninhabited area, but presumed to be quite high. We have recorded data from that pull. The plane descended at 1700 fpm (17 knots or 20 mph) as expected. The plane moved backwards (tail first) with the prevailing winds and struck trees and then flipped over. The pilot wisely placed his hand on the cockpit headliner and released his seat belt then walked out of the wreckage uninjured.

Cirrus considered occupant safety in their cockpit design, which helps avoid injury in the event of a ground impact, both under canopy vertically and crash landing horizontally. The side yoke removes the potential for impaling injury (vs center yoke or center stick). The recessed instrument panel is padded and free of protrusions. All seats conform to the 26G test requirement. The four-point shoulder harnesses keep the occupant upright and restrained. The front seats contain 3-inch honeycomb energy absorption material for vertical forces, and the rear seats have an 8-inch compression zone under the floor.

Originally Posted by Pace

I know which option I would take on a windy day with half decent landing sites.

With a conventional forced landing you would use those winds to your advantage for low ground speed landings into wind and have control over not hitting hard stuff on the ground ! So on windy days do you still promote the idea of pulling the chute ?

Possibly.

However, consider the advice to pilots contemplating these decisions under stress of an emergency event from Dick McGlaughlin, who lost oil pressure while flying near the Bahamas and pulled the parachute handle and survived:

"Don't be sitting in your living room thinking well I've figured it out and I'm going to get it down, I've calculated the wind vectors -- YOU ARE NOT! You are going to be lucky to survive, and you are going to have to remember that you have that parachute!"

I did two things right

Full hour-long version of Dick's talk COPA M10 Dick McGlaughlin keynote: Haiti, a Crash Course.

Originally Posted by mad_jock

Must admit I was chatting about this with the FO this morning. And he has just sent me this.

Cirrus Chute Deployment Fails Over Texas, Pilot Still Makes Safe Landing | Aero-News Network

Bit of a bastard but at least he got down safe. Bet he won't go near a thundercell again. To add I have never had a problem with steam instruments near cells. I have had EFIS give me black screens and standby instruments 4 times. I have 4 times as many hours on steam as I do on EFIS.

Interesting that the NTSB has opened an investigation into this incident and invited the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association to send a party representative, me, along with the usual manufacturer investigators, airframe, rocket, parachute, etc. The NTSB Investigator in Charge authorized the following statement after the initial extensive examination that "No conclusive root cause has been identified." The investigation continues.

Cheers
Rick

[Big Pistons Forever]

I must say I find it rather discouraging to read most of the posts on this forum.

The rigidity of the thinking and the lack of introspection and willingness to consider new concepts is very evident in the majority of the posters, not to mention a distinct wiff of "European pilots are so much better than those mere colonials" hubris......

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by Steevo25

It could have been a very different story. The aircraft came down in a populated area that could have caused injury or death to many people on the ground (a school not too far away).

But this aircraft did come down in a populated area. It did not cause injury or death. People were quoted as saying they were 10 feet away on scaffolding. Other people were in their houses and heard the plane descend.

Why? The physics of a descent under canopy differs greatly than a forced off-airport landing.

The descent under canopy is 20 mph (or 17 knots or 1700 fpm). This is much slower than stall speed of 60 knots in a Cirrus and very much slower than a spin at 100 knots and dastardly slower than a spiral dive at Vne of 200 knots. Slower is better.

The sound of the rocket and parachute deployment was heard by people on the ground. At least two videos were taken by onlookers. They had time to recognize the location and take videos. People close by stated that they turned and looked at the plane coming straight down and missing them. BTW, at 1700 fpm descent, it takes 35 seconds to descent 1000 feet.

A vertical impact involves a much smaller footprint. It could be as small as the 40-foot diameter of the wings. A forced off-airport landing will depend upon what is struck during roll-out. Recently, a King Air impacted three houses and set them all on fire.

Finally, there was no post-impact fire. Despite fracturing the wing fuel-tanks in this accident and leaking about 100 litres of fuel, no fire (although 3 favorite koi fish died from poisoning). In fact, of all of the 34 survivable Cirrus parachute deployments, there has not been a post-impact fire.


Cheers
Rick