Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
I,m pretty sure you shouldn,t be flying over urban areas if you can,t land clear in a single engine in the event of the donkey stopping.
Instead, I plan and train and practice. As do many Cirrus pilots. But because you folks have a misguided sense of privilege not available to mere pilots of modern Cirrus aircraft, these debates continue to diminish the safety record and survivability of the parachute system. Obviously, I'm fascinated by your attitudes. Good thing I don't live with them as constant reminders of how not to treat innovators.
Cheers
Rick
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
Irrespective of how good a pilot is, or isn't, some relevant ANO words are here:
(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area in the event of a power unit failure.
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area in the event of a power unit failure.
It isn't just the Cirrus that has a parachute. A lot of microlights are parachute equipped, and the exact same debate goes on. I've heard pilots admit to being in unlandable areas in dubious weather but going there anyway because they had a parachute. For information, a major emphasis in microlight training in France is about staying over landable areas. But now that most microlights have reliable engines it seems pilots forget this.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye Saab
What this hammster needs is a parachute for when it catchs its nuts on the wheel.
Mind you any sensible hamster wouldn't get there nuts caught to begin with or wouldn't go anywhere near the wheel. Never mind in the dark.
And flying a twin doesn't solve your problems if you fly it in a uneducated manner. Fly over mountains which are higher than your drift down and you are stuffed.
I see its your right to fly aircraft in an unsafe manner. The chute just lets you survive when things go wrong.
What this hammster needs is a parachute for when it catchs its nuts on the wheel.
Mind you any sensible hamster wouldn't get there nuts caught to begin with or wouldn't go anywhere near the wheel. Never mind in the dark.
And flying a twin doesn't solve your problems if you fly it in a uneducated manner. Fly over mountains which are higher than your drift down and you are stuffed.
I see its your right to fly aircraft in an unsafe manner. The chute just lets you survive when things go wrong.
Last edited by mad_jock; 6th Jun 2013 at 19:43.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
Irrespective of how good a pilot is, or isn't, some relevant ANO words are here: ...
So, what are pilots of other types of aircraft doing crashing into houses, apartment buildings, railroad tracks -- and that's the headlines in just the past week? All of those involved fatalities. A couple of them injured people in the houses.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don,t think some of these guys fully understand the legalities of the post from ST above.
It will be interesting to see what the CAA have to say.
Its obvious there are pilots out there think they are exempt from this rule. I think the courts know better.
It will be interesting to see what the CAA have to say.
Its obvious there are pilots out there think they are exempt from this rule. I think the courts know better.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sd, sure, but the crimes of Cheltenham seem chaste in San Diego... (ahem!)
Not the same thing, your SD example is one where the parachute is a valuable and valid tool. It is also legal to fly like that - I gather - in the US. It is strictly forbidden here.
Dying by stretching the glide when you have a recovery system is clearly daft, what we're concerned about is people using them as an excuse to exempt them from good decision making and obeying the rules. Even if you have one of these things you are still - in UK - bound to be able to glide clear of a congested area and that I suspect will prove true even if under a parachute. If you are going to deploy it you'd better be sure you won't drift onto a town which didn't happen here. If you will drift onto a town you'd better be able to glide clear. If you can't do either I think its a clear breach of Rule 5.1.whichever it is and you just shouldn't have been there in the first place. There can't be many places where you couldn't satisfy one or the other of those conditions.
The parachute should be for alighting softly in terrain where a successful forced landing is unlikely - mountains, swamps, heavy crops, not cities. I think it's been established that Cirrus themselves see it this way, land conventionally if possible, if not deploy the chute.
Not the same thing, your SD example is one where the parachute is a valuable and valid tool. It is also legal to fly like that - I gather - in the US. It is strictly forbidden here.
Dying by stretching the glide when you have a recovery system is clearly daft, what we're concerned about is people using them as an excuse to exempt them from good decision making and obeying the rules. Even if you have one of these things you are still - in UK - bound to be able to glide clear of a congested area and that I suspect will prove true even if under a parachute. If you are going to deploy it you'd better be sure you won't drift onto a town which didn't happen here. If you will drift onto a town you'd better be able to glide clear. If you can't do either I think its a clear breach of Rule 5.1.whichever it is and you just shouldn't have been there in the first place. There can't be many places where you couldn't satisfy one or the other of those conditions.
The parachute should be for alighting softly in terrain where a successful forced landing is unlikely - mountains, swamps, heavy crops, not cities. I think it's been established that Cirrus themselves see it this way, land conventionally if possible, if not deploy the chute.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sdbeach: If we wish to advocate for continued use of airports near developed areas, we better have a good story."
The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's. But there is at least an acre of allotments within 300 yards! But no-one was hurt and that is what matters.
Just look at what the developers are trying to do at Wellesbourne. So hope you are all going to log onto Wellesbournes website Wellesbourne News and Events to find out how to object to the planning application!Stratford-on-Avon District Council: E-Planning and Public Consultation » Loxley Park
Strangely I was talking on the phone to my mother who lives near there and she said that "some aircraft was really loud and that it can't have been me as I was talking to her". Not that the C150 I fly sounds anything like an SR22!!! Must say I assumed it was an RAF aircraft on a training exercise, its engine notes bouncing off the nearby hills.
The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's. But there is at least an acre of allotments within 300 yards! But no-one was hurt and that is what matters.
Just look at what the developers are trying to do at Wellesbourne. So hope you are all going to log onto Wellesbournes website Wellesbourne News and Events to find out how to object to the planning application!Stratford-on-Avon District Council: E-Planning and Public Consultation » Loxley Park
Strangely I was talking on the phone to my mother who lives near there and she said that "some aircraft was really loud and that it can't have been me as I was talking to her". Not that the C150 I fly sounds anything like an SR22!!! Must say I assumed it was an RAF aircraft on a training exercise, its engine notes bouncing off the nearby hills.
Last edited by Jude098; 6th Jun 2013 at 19:58.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we get the drift now.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what we're concerned about is people using them as an excuse to exempt them from good decision making and obeying the rules.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's.
The comparison between how to handle chute deployment in a microlight and in a Cirrus doesn't hold water. The former are usually very light, with a very low stall speed and sledom require more than 100-200m landing distance. Hence, the average microlight pilot stands a good chance of making a succesful forced landing. A Cirrus, on the other hand, in comparison seems to me to be a big, heavy and not very sprightly thing with a lot higher stall speed and requiring a much longer landing distance. How are the chances of the average Cirrus pilot making a succesful forced landing in view of this?
I don't fly a Cirrus but if I did then I would be reaching for the red handle much quicker than in the Tecnam P92 I currently fly, in the latter probably only in case of controllability problems.
I don't fly a Cirrus but if I did then I would be reaching for the red handle much quicker than in the Tecnam P92 I currently fly, in the latter probably only in case of controllability problems.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we get the drift now.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
I don't regard myself as a "gash pilot" I am instrument rated, very current and fly about 250 hours a year, although I clearly don't have as much talent as you.
The chute was one of the main reasons I bought my SR22.
Not because I planned to go mountain flying in the middle of a thunderstorm at night and thought it would be OK because I have the chute, but because I often fly with my family.
None of them is a pilot (although two of them have done the excellent Partner In Command course run by COPA and which trains them in how to deal with pilot incapacitation).
If something were to happen to me during a flight, I don't want my last thought on this earth to be that I have killed them as well.
Now if I only had the talent to fly my way out of that problem......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
A Cirrus, on the other hand, in comparison seems to me to be a big, heavy and not very sprightly thing with a lot higher stall speed and requiring a much longer landing distance. How are the chances of the average Cirrus pilot making a succesful forced landing in view of this?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
BTW what sort of car do you drive because its way way more likely to happen while driving.
Last edited by mad_jock; 6th Jun 2013 at 20:15.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
The trouble is that developers are building near to established airports/airfields. Gloucestershire Airport (Staverton) was established in 1931...the houses in the road that the Cirrus came down in were built in the 1970's.
I strongly encourage local pilots and aviation supporters to become involved with local land use decisions. That's the only way I know of thwarting the bogus economic and development arguments that have played out in the US. Hopefully, some of you will be inspired to do similar work in your local jurisdictions.
As for planes with parachutes dropping into backyard gardens near airports, the press coverage today seems to quote many relieved residents and nearby workers. Perhaps that's an opening. Anyone interested in pursuing this with local airport and aviation authorities? Happy to point you to supportive Cirrus owners and pilots who have the data and passion for advocacy.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
we get the drift now.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
The BRS is for gash pilots that don't follow the rules and don't have any thought for flying with regard to anyone elses but themselves.
Its there right to fly where they want, when they want, irrespective of good airmanship.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
If a Cirrus pilot uses the parachute, then they must be "gash pilots" (a term that doesn't translate very well to California!).
If a Cirrus pilot dies when not using the parachute, then they must have lacked good airmanship.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to say, Rick puts forward a pretty compelling argument.
To paraphrase; its better to fly badly and live 100% of the time than to fly well and die 1% of the time.
I still believe that having a chute means that some of those who are not qualified by either training or experience will exceed their personal limits because they have a chute. This, in these brief moments when its all going wrong, means that those concerned are at greater risk of death than those being flown by the same pilot who is flying conservatively in the same conditions in an aircraft that is not CAPS equipped.
Sure there are accidents where CAPS is the only way to survive, and that alone is reason enough to have a chute. However, there needs to be some sort training to ensure that knowledge of having this 'get out of jail free' card does not exempt one from the same standard of airmanship expected of a pilot who does not have a chute at his disposal.
This is absolutely not intended to suggest that those who elect to pull the chute are sub-optimal pilots because they can't recover from a bad situation.
It is however intended to suggest that those who get themselves in over their heads because they know they have a chute are sub-optimal pilots.
Please note the difference.
To paraphrase; its better to fly badly and live 100% of the time than to fly well and die 1% of the time.
I still believe that having a chute means that some of those who are not qualified by either training or experience will exceed their personal limits because they have a chute. This, in these brief moments when its all going wrong, means that those concerned are at greater risk of death than those being flown by the same pilot who is flying conservatively in the same conditions in an aircraft that is not CAPS equipped.
Sure there are accidents where CAPS is the only way to survive, and that alone is reason enough to have a chute. However, there needs to be some sort training to ensure that knowledge of having this 'get out of jail free' card does not exempt one from the same standard of airmanship expected of a pilot who does not have a chute at his disposal.
This is absolutely not intended to suggest that those who elect to pull the chute are sub-optimal pilots because they can't recover from a bad situation.
It is however intended to suggest that those who get themselves in over their heads because they know they have a chute are sub-optimal pilots.
Please note the difference.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
So your in that group then. but are going for the even rarer event of you dropping dead at the controls.
BTW what sort of car do you drive because its way way more likely to happen while driving.
The BRS pilots who do follow the rules and have airmanship have the chute for the extremely rare event that the engine quits on them. But because of having good airmanship it more than likely won't make a difference to the out come anyway.
So your in that group then. but are going for the even rarer event of you dropping dead at the controls.
BTW what sort of car do you drive because its way way more likely to happen while driving.
And, by the way, one of the successful deployments in the Cirrus fleet was exactly this: the pilot was taken ill and his passenger pulled the chute.
I'd also still use it every time for an engine failure if I didn't have a guaranteed runway made.
In fairness, I used to think as you do and believed dead sticking was the right choice. What caused me to change my mind? Three things:
A long conversation with two of the highest hours and best qualified Cirrus (and other Technically Advanced Aircraft) instructors out there in which they both convinced me that they themselves would do this. No lack of talent there, I can assure you!
Secondly, the time I spent doing emergencies training in the full motion simulator that they operate in Las Vegas.
Thirdly, the evidence collected by COPA as summarised in the video I posted.
In answer to your other question: a Merc. If I could get a similar safety enhancement for it, I would. The fact that I can't doesn't stop me driving it, but that's not a reason for not having a plane with a chute.
@shytorque: Of course I would, however as a matter of fact things happen a lot faster in a Cirrus and there are less suitable emergency landing areas available. In other words, the likelihood of an average Cirrus pilot botching up an emergency landing is a lot higher than for an average 3-axis microlight pilot.
Many years ago, a Bonanza departed Copenhagen Airport, entered IMC, went out of control and ultimately crashed into a house. Pilot dead, house destroyed (nobody at home, luckily). Third party insurance in Denmark rocketed afterwards. What if that had been a Cirrus with a deplyoed BRS?
Anyway, the conclusions drawn in this thread as to whether the Staverton accident was handled correctly ("the engine was clearly running so he shouldn't have pulled the chute") are in view of the available FACTS absurdly premature.
Many years ago, a Bonanza departed Copenhagen Airport, entered IMC, went out of control and ultimately crashed into a house. Pilot dead, house destroyed (nobody at home, luckily). Third party insurance in Denmark rocketed afterwards. What if that had been a Cirrus with a deplyoed BRS?
Anyway, the conclusions drawn in this thread as to whether the Staverton accident was handled correctly ("the engine was clearly running so he shouldn't have pulled the chute") are in view of the available FACTS absurdly premature.