Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[belowradar]

As a CSIP who attended Cirrus training update in Holland a few months back
I have to say that the message from Cirrus was loud and clear - if faced with power failure away from an airport don't deliberate pull the chute !

Pilots have died in Cirrus aircraft where a chute pull would have saved them

Yes each scenario requires pilot judgement but the decision height for deployment should be briefed on every single departure and if PFL /midair/control problem / loss of control / inadvertent IMC / illness or part incapacitation then pull while you have height and are able

Great debate and fantastic advert for the chutes capability - it will be interesting to find out what happened in this situation

[englishal]

Well the Brits are still taught to do a forced landings in single engine jets with engine outs.

RIP Flt Lt Jon Egging

[sdbeach]

Seems to me that this system is being used because of PILOT ERROR most of the time !!!!!

Yup. About 90% of the determined causes of Cirrus fatal accidents were pilot-related causes. About 70% of all General Aviation accidents were pilot-related causes. It's us, not the planes. So, we agree.

The issue at hand is whether you would sentence to death any pilot who make an error? The innovation of a parachute recovery system ensures that Cirrus pilots have another option.

So far, we judge that no CAPS deployment was done for frivolous or simple reasons. Loss of control ranks as the number one factor in general aviation fatal accidents, no matter what the aircraft. Simple solutions, like suggesting the pilot needs to cross-check their instruments, have not been a sufficient intervention to reduce that factor over the past decade.

Yet, the recent increase in utilisation of the Cirrus parachute system has occurred at the same time as we see a reduction in fatal accidents. Just 3 fatal accidents in the past 9 months while 5 survivable Cirrus parachute deployments. This compares favorably with the fall of 2011 when 8 Cirrus fatal accidents happened in 3 months. In the 18 months since then 12 fatal accidents and 9 survivable parachute deployments

Something has changed in the Cirrus pilot community.

The current fatal accident rate in Cirrus aircraft has dropped to 1.16 fatals per 100,000 hours of flying time for the past 12 months and 1.63 for the past 36 months (longer periods smooth out the effects of a small fleet size compared to GA fleet).


Cheers
Rick

[Pace]

Jonzarno

I was purely clearing up a false statement regarding Cirrus official stance on using the chute in event of an engine failure! Cirrus official stance is to glide clear towards a suitable field and make a conventional forced landing!
If there is no suitable landing area to the CONSIDER the use of the chute!
Others state otherwise.
Concerning pulling the chute over a built up area where you can glide clear I would be totally opposed as I consider by doing so would be reckless to others on the ground and a totally selfish and unneeded exercise!
Other situations ? Yes I would pull the chute

Pace

[Clear_Prop]

What's all this about nobody ever died after CAPS deployment?

Does that statement conveniently ignore the incident last year (or 2011) when a pilot deployed CAPS and then followed no further emergency drills? I believe the outcome was an engine fire and all on board were burned to death before the aircraft reached the ground.

Maybe somebody has a link to the report?

[englishal]

Moot point. That accident was not survivable in any aeroplane, other than possibly one with an ejector seat.

[Jonzarno]

Clearprop

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

In that accident, there was a collision between two aircraft. The CAPS system was not deployed by the pilot but was triggered by the impact.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

I just watched the video. Quite informative. Seemed to me like a considered approach to saving lives in a world where pilots make mistakes. The case for not pulling the chute isn't supported by the evidence. It doesn't rule out a pilot becoming a hazard to persons on the ground, but that's not a risk we can readily reduce to nil in any event.

[Eeek That was close]

I have one of these things and I have to admit I've never paused to work out some specific conditions when I'd automatically reach for the big red handle first and think later. I suppose I should.

Badly losing orientation in IMC, a heart attack, collision or heading towards something even a sparrow wouldn't land on are candidates. My aircraft is a 600kg and I also fly gliders, so tendency would be that if I still have wings and I can see grass, I'll give it a go.

I applaud this guy. At least he made a decision and did it. Too many people get killed by indecision - I know dithering has nearly had me a few times.

[Pace]

Charlie

You most certainly can reduce the risk to nil if you can glide clear of the built up area! To pull the chute when you do not need to is cowardly and shows total disregard for others in the built up areas as well as a lack of piloting skills!

Pace

[sdbeach]

You most certainly can reduce the risk to nil if you can glide clear of the built up area! To pull the chute when you do not need to is cowardly and shows total disregard for others as well as a lack of piloting skills

Pace, please think through your suggestion. Nil? To whom?

And you say "when you do not need to" and then associate that decision with pilot skills. Hmmm...

If you can glide clear, then you have control, right?
If you have lost control, then you can't glide clear, right?

Witness comments published in the news articles seem consistent about a few things that suggest this pilot was losing control and acted promptly to survive a bad situation:

* one witness reports the plane come out of and going into the clouds

* another reports climbing into the clouds

* several report hearing the sounds of deployment, perhaps the rocket whoosh or the crack sound of the canopy inflating (sailors anyone?)

(Fortunately, this is a more recent model and likely has recorded flight data, so the investigators will learn of the flight profile prior to deployment.)

Cirrus pilots need to decide if they can land safely before they descend below a hard-deck altitude. That's the altitude below which the CAPS parachute has insufficient time to deploy successfully. 2000 feet is recommended, and no one has died when the parachute was deployed above 1000 feet and airspeed less than 190 knots. Survivable deployments have happened at slightly below 400 feet, but the ground impact was coincident with the tail drop.

Pilots of other planes have no such choice. They have to continue to fly the plane into the crash, arriving with flying speed to destroy things and fuel to burn.

My request is that you think through what a Cirrus pilot must consider in situations like loss of engine power, spatial disorientation, cascading instrument failures, etc. Baldly claiming that greater pilot skills will recover or avoid these situations seems unjustified.


Cheers
Rick

[P1DRIVER]

Pace



The nail has been 3/4 hit !!!!!!

We are giving "weaker" pilots a false sense of security.I'll just pop into the cloud I,ll be alright, I'll pull the chute if i lose control etc etc if you can,t glide clear you shouldn,t be taking that route !!!!

Q? Can u still manouvre the a/c with the parachute open?

[gasman123]

I need to support Pace here. There is more to it than the life of the pilot - if you decide to take to the air in this way then you are accepting an element of risk; it is beholden on us to minimise the risk to others on the ground, even if this means increasing the risk to ourselves. We are not military pilots flying to save lives - we are flying generally for fun. This changes the gameplan considerably.

i.e. in the event of an engine failure glide clear if possible, then deploy a chute. If no eight to glide clear - deploy chute. We don't know the details so its all conjecture. However at 2000ft there is plenty of clear ground within reach around Cheltenham.

Pulling chute over a built up area when there is a chance to glide clear places lives at risk unnecessarily and adversely affects the reputation of GA.

Comment from the Echo website tonight to illustrate the usual responses
“Sadly anyone living in the area knew this was inevitable, the planes on approach to Staverton have been getting lower and closer in recent weeks. Its only a matter of time before a real tragedy occurs, something must be done to stop them flying over such a populated area. What would have happened if it had been in one of the many school playgrounds in the area at playtime?”

[mad_jock]

claiming that greater pilot skills will recover or avoid these situations seems unjustified

It doesn't to those of us with multiple thousands of hours who have through planning and making sure that we have escape routes have never been in the situation that a parachute is required.

As the previous poster says it is the talent limited pilots getting themselves into way out of their depths which needs to be sorted.

And I wouldn't have thought you could control it maybe that will be a mark two version.

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by CharlieDeltaUK

It doesn't rule out a pilot becoming a hazard to persons on the ground, but that's not a risk we can readily reduce to nil in any event.

Agreed, but several aspects of utilizing the CAPS parachute minimize the risk to persons on the ground:

* people hear the parachute deployment, as reported in this incident

* descent at 1700 fpm under canopy gives people 35 seconds from 1000 feet to react and move, as reported in this incident (also note that at least 2 people had time to make video recordings of this plane under canopy!)

* descent at 17 knots (1700 fpm) involves about 1/12th the energy of impacting at stall speed of 60 knots

* descent at 17 knots involves about 1/34th the energy of a spin speed of 100 knots (from recorded data of other Cirrus accidents)

* after a CAPS deployment, there has never been a post-impact fire

So, agreed, the risk will not be nil. But it seems quite improved, eh?


Cheers
Rick

[funfly]

After having owned three aircraft, if I bought another today I would insist on a parachute recovery system.

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by P1DRIVER

We are giving "weaker" pilots a false sense of security.I'll just pop into the cloud I,ll be alright, I'll pull the chute if i lose control etc etc if you can,t glide clear you shouldn,t be taking that route !!!!

Hard to know if this is true or not. Certainly, the CAPS cynics believe it to be true. But how would you measure it?

One aspect of the success of the Cirrus SR2X has been to bring new pilots into flying. What you call a false sense of security may actually be an attractive level of safety.

Yet, it isn't those new pilots who show up in fatal accident reports. Over half of the pilots had more than 800 hours of total time. Only a couple had less than 200 hours total time. And Cirrus has successfully equipped several university and military training academies with parachute-equipped airplanes.

Now, time-in-type matters a lot. But every Cirrus pilot starts out at zero time in a new model.

Frankly, we see too many tragic aviation accidents attributed to pilot error, whether or not the plane was a Cirrus. Yet, somehow, this and other aviation forum discussions focus on the "weaker" pilots in a Cirrus. It's not them, it's us. All of us who fly single-engine fixed-wing aircraft.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by P1DRIVER

Q? Can u still manouvre the a/c with the parachute open?

No.

From recorded data in another CAPS event, the plane under canopy with full engine power simply rotates like a carousel. Unlike a paraglider, the motor is not powerful enough and the canopy is round and too large.

The first few frames of one video seems to suggest that this plane was moving in the direction of the engine slightly but turning like the earlier documented event.


Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Originally Posted by gasman123

Comment from the Echo website tonight to illustrate the usual responses
“Sadly anyone living in the area knew this was inevitable, the planes on approach to Staverton have been getting lower and closer in recent weeks. Its only a matter of time before a real tragedy occurs, something must be done to stop them flying over such a populated area. What would have happened if it had been in one of the many school playgrounds in the area at playtime?”

Well, this comment suggests that those flying airplanes without a parachute -- or a Cirrus pilot who does not deploy the CAPS parachute -- will be the cause of a tragedy.

Today, we saw how much open space can receive a Cirrus under canopy with out hitting a playground or any of the people within earshot of the rocket.

Now consider if that Cirrus pilot had attempted to glide clear instead of deploying a parachute -- how much damage would occur? Flying at least at 60 knots or higher above stall. Carrying fuel. Impacting horizontally into occupied buildings. Or bouncing off trees, cars, light standards, etc.

If we wish to advocate for continued use of airports near developed areas, we better have a good story. Seems like today's outcome was one such good story.


Cheers
Rick

[P1DRIVER]

Rick


So unless a wing has departed or ailerons stuck or tail problems A ppl pilot should have a fair /good chance of landing clear of built up areas!!!!!!