Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[Pace]

Rick

I understand what you are trying to say but it's not totally accurate!
Your vertical descent will only happen on a still air day!
I saw a cirrus deployment on film at altitude! Admittedly the winds at altitude must have been strong but the aircraft was travelling horizontally at what must have been twice or more if the vertical speed!
We all know the damage that can happen in a 30 mph crash in a car so on reasonably strong wind days not only is there vertical speed but forward speed to smash into building or whatever solid that is there!
It was pure luck that the aircraft in this situation came down where it did and not onto people ?
The police made that statement ! A six year old child will look up and get out if the way? I think not!
You still have not answered my question regarding engine failure on windy days ? You take to the chute I would rather take an into wind forced landing where I have control of where my aircraft is going rather than being a passenger to where I am taken to and on top of whoever is in my way !
Sorry we have a responsibility to others rather than just saving our own bacon and I think you are misleading yourself!
If you have no choice in an unflyable aircraft you have no choice so pray you don't take others out !
But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot

Pace

[m.Berger]

The police said it was pure luck to the reporter. Oh, well, that's Gospel truth then. I'd pull the 'chute. Responsibilities to my nearest and dearest trump the donkey sanctuary/ great crested newt or imaginary six year old child. You might be the greatest pilot the world will ever know but to turn down the safety gear makes me doubt that.

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by Pace

I understand what you are trying to say but it's not totally accurate!
Your vertical descent will only happen on a still air day!

Huh? Under canopy, the vertical velocity will be the same on a still day or a windy day.

Now, I agree, that on a windy day, the wind imparts a horizontal velocity. Of course, your straw horse example with surface winds of 30-40 knots presumes that flight under those conditions is warranted! I'd be very thoughtful about departing with those conditions -- winds aloft at high speeds, okay, but surface winds at gale force would not be fun.

Still, the impact velocity horizontally will be somewhat reduced than the surface wind speed due to drag of the plane under canopy. I'm not a skydiver or a cargo chute specialist, so I don't know how much. It is a great thought experiment. Just something that I will enjoy thinking about and then ignore in an emergency -- those speeds are much less, by half, of the flying airspeed at stall or worse if in a spin or spiral dive. I like my chances with the survivable cockpit features and the physics of the parachute canopy.

Originally Posted by Pace

I saw a cirrus deployment on film at altitude! Admittedly the winds at altitude must have been strong but the aircraft was travelling horizontally at what must have been twice or more if the vertical speed!

Details? I love tracking videos of Cirrus deployments, so perhaps you can back up your recollection with the actual video for all of us to compare.

Originally Posted by Pace

You still have not answered my question regarding engine failure on windy days ? You take to the chute I would rather take an into wind forced landing where I have control of where my aircraft is going rather than being a passenger to where I am taken to and on top of whoever is in my way !

If you have control, then use it -- until you reach a hard deck altitude when deploying CAPS ensures a low-energy impact. I'll land driven by the wind and take my chances safely secure in my four-point shoulder harness braced for impact. You will be consumed with flying and looking out for boulders, ditches, fences, buildings, all sorts of things that could ruin your day.

Originally Posted by Pace

But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot

Ah, the shame gambit. Instead of thoughtful examination of the potential outcome, you ride in with shrieks of catastrophe.

Were you aware that three Cirrus parachute pulls were over densely populated areas?

• Gaithersburg, MD -- landed in a residential street after bouncing off trees and a parked truck
• Danbury, CT -- at night, landed suspended on telephone wires
• Cheltenham, UK -- landed in a garden

Cheers
Rick

[007helicopter]

Pace I will let Rick answer in full as directed to him but on the point of hitting people on the ground

a) Any sane pilot will if still capable try and glide or fly to as clear an area as possible to save his own skin if nothing else. Selfish bastard or not he will be trying to preserve his own life.

b) Most of the 30+ plus pulls to date are over sparsely populated areas.

c) The noise of the Rocket gets the attention of the vast majority of the population.

d) Even looking down on populated areas I think the statistical chance of hitting a person is remote, maybe a building or vehicle is a higher chance but it has not happened in the last decade.

e) Eventually it must happen but insignificant in terms of the big picture compared to pedestrians getting killed by road vehicles, or swimmers killed by speed boats etc, it happens inevitably.

f) What is the alternative, an aircraft travelling at 60-70 knots or considerably more rocketing into buildings doing significantly more damage.

So as an argument I see it as insignificant to the main debate on the pro's and cons of the chute.

[Fuji Abound]

If you have no choice in an unflyable aircraft you have no choice so pray you don't take others out !
But sorry a flyable aircraft and the pilot should be ashamed pulling over a densely populated area for that pilot is an excuse for a pilot not a pilot

Pace

Come on this is all getting a bit desperate.

If a pilot looses control in IMC for whatever reason he is going to make a large hole somewhere and it is purely down to luck where. At least under chute he is likely to cause a great deal less damage.

The chute is pulled for a reason; 9 times out of ten (and possibly more) the pilot would have been in the same situation in any aircraft.

[Bristol1965]

Rick,

Thanks for the information you have been posting. Interesting details and they do make sense.

Minor point if I may ask, I was under impression that the descend speed for SR20 and SR22 upto and including G3 is about 6 meter a seconds or about 14 miles. Of course this is at full weight, so if the aircraft is lightly loaded, it will descend at lower rate. Still this is a minor point.

Anti Chute Pilots

Regarding aircraft landing here or there, I don't think it is fair to speculate. People are raising "What Ifs..." Well in practice one may decide to land clear of ground and then crash it in a school or a house, I think an aircraft in glide with the speed of 90 knots will cause a lot more damage than when it is descending at the speed of 10 knots. I know those who need to go against the chute will always have a scenario at hand.

General

I was taught, unless you can guarantee a "safe landing" in case of a major failure (engine, prop, fuselage...), then pull the chute, by all means assess the situation, but you are up against time. Can I also add, the Cirrus has a Flight Operation Manual. It is the manufacturer's recommendation and "Now a requirement" to fly the Cirrus aircraft in accordance with the flight operation manual. Any cirrus pilots that require clarification on the Flight operation manual, then may I suggest them to contact a Cirrus Training Centre in UK, details of which are published on the Cirrus-US Website.

In the case of the last incident, the pilot did the right thing by pulling the chute, had he waited and descended below cloud (the cloud base at Gloucestershire airport was about 600 feet overcast and lower above Cheltenham) and then pulled the chute, the result of a plummeted aircraft to the ground would have been different (As per manufacturer, the Chute requires at least 400 feet to open).

Happy flying and be Safe.

[abgd]

Walk around any city centre and look at the sheer mass of street furniture that has been damaged by motor vehicles. Bent lamp posts, dented crash barriers, shattered bollards and so on. Over the course of my life I must have chanced upon perhaps half a dozen buildings with cars sticking out of them.

On another thread on the forum, somebody pointed out that there are 1900 road deaths a year in the uk. When you look into them in more detail, there are about 1300 deaths of motor vehicle occupants/drivers and 600 deaths of pedestrians/cyclists.

Obviously it's irresponsible to put anybody at risk if you can help it, but even in the context of CAPS deployments over populated areas, as aviators we are vastly more likely to kill ourselves and our passengers than any non-participants.

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by Bristol1965

Rick,

Thanks for the information you have been posting. Interesting details and they do make sense.

Good to know.

Originally Posted by Bristol1965

Minor point if I may ask, I was under impression that the descend speed for SR20 and SR22 upto and including G3 is about 6 meter a seconds or about 14 miles. Of course this is at full weight, so if the aircraft is lightly loaded, it will descend at lower rate. Still this is a minor point.

Have never heard of a rate in meter/second, so I dunno.

What I do know is that recorded data of a moderately loaded SR22 shows a descent of 1700 fpm or 17 knots or 20 mph. That's 8.636 m/s, for what that's worth.

Interesting engineering tidbit: the parachute opens faster when deployed at higher airspeeds and slower when going slower. So the initial deceleration can be quite high. The Horton, UK parachute pull was at 187 KIAS and the recorded data showed two seconds of negative 4 G deceleration. Cinch those seatbelts tight and low across your hips!

Cheers
Rick

[Pace]

I was taught, unless you can guarantee a "safe landing" in case of a major failure (engine, prop, fuselage...), then pull the chute, by all means assess the situation, but you are up against time. Can I also add, the Cirrus has a Flight Operation Manual. It is the manufacturer's recommendation and "Now a requirement" to fly the Cirrus aircraft in accordance with the flight operation manual. Any cirrus pilots that require clarification on the Flight operation manual, then may I suggest them to contact a Cirrus Training Centre in UK, details of which are published on the Cirrus-US Website

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute? Rick I am sure you can publish that here as I do not have up to date access to the latest Cirrus instructions on the use of the chute.
Last I saw was on engine failure which was conventional glide clear and only in the event of no suitable forced landing site CONSIDER the chute.
I presume a heck of a lot has changed since then so lets see the official chute instructions from Cirrus.

Oh well the pull for any reason anywhere means minimal PPL training for Cirrus pilots/ No PFL as you do not need them. No Spin training as you do not need it! stall recovery? Why bother you have the chute. Recovery from unusual attitudes? again why bother pull the chute! The list goes on ! Instrument flying skills? Just stick the autopilot on etc etc etc! People on the ground to hell with them as long as I am ok? Weather why bother pull the chute! Why even bother with the PPL a driving licence will do!
Not the way I wa taught

Pace

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by Pace

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute?

CAPS™ WORKS. TRAINING MAKES IT WORK FOR YOU.

Originally Posted by Pace

Oh well the pull for any reason anywhere means minimal PPL training for Cirrus pilots/ No PFL as you do not need them. No Spin training as you do not need it! stall recovery? Why bother you have the chute. Recovery from unusual attitudes? again why bother pull the chute! The list goes on ! Instrument flying skills? Just stick the autopilot on etc etc etc! People on the ground to hell with them as long as I am ok? Weather why bother pull the chute! Why even bother with the PPL a driving licence will do!
Not the way I wa taught

Actually, pretty close to the design principle -- make the technology smart enough to get out of the way!

In reality, Cirrus has succeeded in the marketplace by expanding the pool of potential pilots. They do not focus on trying to sell to you, Pace. There are too few of you to sustain general aviation, so to keep GA alive, we need to attract other people with a need for personal air transportation.

Frankly, all this skepticism of safety innovations -- because it was not the way you were taught -- fails in two ways. First, it turns off people. Second, it doesn't address the current and emerging generation of pilots.

Take a look at the integrated syllabus for private and instrument training.

This syllabus takes ab initio student pilots through a realistic set of flight scenarios such that they come out with both an instrument rating and a private pilot rating at the same time. Definitely not the way you were taught. But it works, according to several Cirrus Flight Training Centers.

Cheers
Rick

[Gertrude the Wombat]

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

One factor (in the UK at least) was social change - driving whilst drunk changed from being the bog standard way to get home from the pub to being socially unacceptable.

[execExpress]

Pace - it seems to me to be your honourable quest to protect the innocent, in particular the 'eventually inevitable' unsupervised occupant of a parambulator, from a BRS pull.

Invoking concepts such as cowardice, shame and "excuse for a pilot" (not a new low for PPRuNE I suppose) might not be such an effective way for the skeptics to achieve that.

I sincerely hope we will not in future be debating how a language and climate of hostility toward anything but "wing gone" use of BRS may have negatively influenced a pilot of a BRS equipped aircraft - say on a perfectly legal arrival/departure over a populated area, flown in the same (reasonable) circumstances as non BRS a/c -who did not to pull when it all went pear-shaped for some reason, ending with an uncontrolled high velocity arrival, pall of rising thick black smoke and the much greater prospect of third parties being involved.

The reason why it went pear shaped will be investigated and debated, pull or no pull, but the consequences for many, hopefully all, involved would likely be significantly different in the pull case given the mass and slipperiness of an SR22.

It may be that we have moved or are moving from an initial period (post-introduction) where Rick could argue (115 fatalities) that BRS was not used enough when it should have been (likewise ejector seats post introduction) through lack of prior thought/drilling on BRS use, to a period where there might be some more drilling or awareness that leads to more pulls than might have been 'strictly' necessary according to some expectations. However even if true that at least would suggest that real world practice is/has swung away from the fatal end (under use) and we can go on learning about the subtleties and complexities which arise from the existence of such technology.

As hard as it was for Cirrus to get BRS certified (many said would never happen) the initial field experience was IMHO was harder "you can fit BRS but too many pilots are not using it and dying when things go wrong -Why o why is that?". It is not that they flew a dumb flight because they thought they had a BRS to bail them out. They never expected to be in an accident, had not considered BRS scenarios and were not primed to pull at all or in time when - somehow - it was needed.


The BRS debates do help to, rightly, also bring a focus on real world piloting skills and training, which even the airline industry has learned through AAF447 and Buffalo remains fundamental however much it has invested in automating flying skills (baby) and human error (bathwater) out of the airliner.

Skills and training can always be improved, but sadly not to the level of themselves totally obviating fatal accidents. In a world likely to become less and less tolerant of risk the ability of technology such as BRS to mitigate the dire consequences of failure(s) across the spectrum of human processess of training, skills, judgement, SA, physiology, psychology, engineering, meteorology, ..., becomes more precious over time. I know what 'black smoke' images I am relieved were not captured on mobile phones last week, whatever the prior circumstances. When those circumstances are understood maybe true aviation safety culture learning can be practiced and applied to the ultimate benefit of us all.

P.S. also known to fly Cessna, Piper and gliders. I suppose each of those gets me tarred with some brush or other too. More human-ness I guess. Human-ness happens, shall we try to improve on it? :-)

[m.Berger]

Much better that he'd died. I suppose then Pace could have told us all that he was an ace pilot and right not to deploy his 'chute.
Flyable aircraft but pilot out of depth or even simply frightened: PULL THE CHUTE. Miracle escapes are better for GA than fatal accidents. As for "not what I was taught," Then you are not receptive to continuous improvement, the latest training wisdom and maintaining the currency of your skills. Truly an apology for a pilot whose attitude should be IMHO one of "learning all the time."

[Pace]

Ok apologies for writing excuse for a pilot ! Firstly I am totally for the Cirrus and its chute but certain areas of iits use bother me and the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills ! Sorry for offending anyone

Pace

[Mariner9]

Well said Pace. Some of the insults hurled about on this thread concerning a fellow pilot are outrageous IMHO, especially given that we know so little regarding the circumstances of the subject BRS deployment

I hope none of the Cirrus pilots reading this are ever dissuaded from a BRS deployment fearing subsequent trial by Proon.

[Jonzarno]

the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills !

Pace

This is a key principle behind the CAPS system and I agree entirely.

Some of those posting here have made it look as though (to caricature a bit ) Cirrus pilots are told to pull the parachute as soon as a warning light comes on and that, therefore, Cirrus pilots don't bother to learn basic skills.

That is not the case. This comment was recently made on the COPA forum discussing this incident:

"Train to use CAPS if necessary, but train even more to avoid having to use it in the first place. "

That is a much better reflection of the real attitude.

Just like the pilots of any other make of aircraft, there are bad Cirrus pilots and basically competent Cirrus pilots who make mistakes that the sky gods posting here would never make.

Only today, I was watching an Air Safety Institute video about a Piper pilot who got caught by a storm in America after misunderstanding the limitations of the Nexrad weather display and died together with his family. That doesn't make all Piper pilots reckless fools.

(BTW, it's worth a watch: http://aopamailer.aopa2.org/trk/clic..._id=F1306ESW04

Just like the pilots of other aircraft, I also believe that the majority of Cirrus drivers are serious about flying standards, training and safety. This is borne out by the attendances at CPPPs and the activity of both COPA and Cirrus Aircraft themselves in promoting this at a level as good as, perhaps even better than, any in the industry.

The key difference is that we have the option of the chute and are taught to make it part of our emergencies handling and to be sure to use it early enough to ensure it does it's job and in circumstances where not doing so would put us at greater risk of dying than using it.

If that makes me a lousy pilot: Guilty as Charged

[stevelup]

Originally Posted by Pace

Would someone be kind enough to post a link or the relevant material where Cirrus give such detailed instructions on the use of the chute? Rick I am sure you can publish that here as I do not have up to date access to the latest Cirrus instructions on the use of the chute.
Last I saw was on engine failure which was conventional glide clear and only in the event of no suitable forced landing site CONSIDER the chute.
I presume a heck of a lot has changed since then so lets see the official chute instructions from Cirrus.

The POH states:-

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide speed. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. If altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. Refer to Section 10, Safety Information, for CAPS deployment scenarios and landing considerations.

Which seems pretty reasonable?

And:-

CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated when any other means of handling the emergency would not protect the occupants from serious injury.

Which is hardly encouraging reckless abandon when pulling the handle!

[Jonzarno]

I hope none of the Cirrus pilots reading this are ever dissuaded from a BRS deployment fearing subsequent trial by PPRuNe.

No: I think I will regard it as a Badge of Honour!

Better to stand in the pillory than dangle from the gallows, eh?

[Aphrican]

Ok apologies for writing excuse for a pilot ! Firstly I am totally for the Cirrus and its chute but certain areas of iits use bother me and the chute should be there to compliment basic handling skills and not to be a substitute for those handling skills ! Sorry for offending anyone

Pace

To be fair, I think that this is something that Cirrus and COPA are trying to do.

My VFR Cirrus Transition Training (with a factory syllabus and standardised instruction) took me 11.3 flight hours, at least the same in "ground hours" and 34 landings and was much harder and more rigorous than my FAA PPL oral and checkride. I was a materially better pilot after the course than before it but still obviously a new pilot.

My left forearm hurt at the end of each day. There was some "buttonology" but the emphasis was certainly on hand flying with particular emphasis on very precise speed and energy management.

I will take the annual currency training structured by Cirrus as well.

The COPA sponsored CPPP ground courses are also very good (I haven't done the flying part of a CPPP yet). I am working on my FAA IR at the moment. The two weather courses that I took at a CPPP were much more in depth than the weather material required for the FAA IR written. The fact that one can get every weather question wrong on the FAA IR written scares me.

Risk homeostasis is a factor that ought to be more explicitly addressed in Cirrus / COPA training without diluting the message that people should pull when they need to but should try minimise the need.

The factory offers a decentralised, standardised, appropriately scaled approximation of a type rating and currency training. COPA offers advanced courses with respect to weather, avionics, powerplants, decision making etc.

It is up to pilots to take advantage of all of the training opportunities available.

[Pace]

CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated when any other means of handling the emergency would not protect the occupants from serious injury.

The above from Cirrus makes sobering reading and not quite the pull the CAPS at the first sign of a warning light as some seem to suggest.
I noted a referral to strong winds soemthing I have tried to discuss which Rick had poo pood as literally insignificant in a descending Cirrus under a chute.
My message throughout this has been to highlight what I could see as problem areas over built up cities, strong winds, neglecting basic handling skills especially PFLs and being lured into situations you cannot cope with through confidence in the CAPS as a get out of jail for free.
I went over the top with frustration at Ricks everything in the garden is rosy attitude to CAPS and again apologize for referring to excuse for a pilot. I was out of order!

Pace